Sitting of 8 February 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  ARTIFICIAL KIDNEY MACHINES
  10.5 a.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the development of facilities for treatment of patients suffering from chronic renal failure by intermittent dialysis on artificial kidney machines.
  On 7th March last year, I said in answer to Questions by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) that 95 National Health Service patients were being treated in England and Wales and that I hoped to provide facilities for not less than 100 additional patients within the next 12 months. At present, 116 patients are being treated either in National Health Service hospital centres or in the home under the supervision of a centre. In the next few weeks I hope that new units will be opened which are designed to treat about another 60 patients. Home dialysis will also be extended. The service is growing slowly at present, but will grow more quickly as schemes on which we are pressing ahead with the highest priority come into use. Three main causes have conditioned the rate of growth; the need to recruit and to train staff, the time unavoidably taken to plan and build or adapt specialised accommodation, and outbreaks of infection in existing units.
  Training of staff inevitably takes time, especially while working units in which they can be trained are comparatively few. But more doctors, nurses and technicians must have the opportunity to acquire the experience that is vital for this kind of treatment, to enable the service to grow more rapidly. The present
  1560
  planned provision for training accommodation and equipment is not governed by availability of money.
  The medical profession recognises that this treatment carries with it the danger of spread of disease carried in the blood—particularly jaundice which can be infectious and can be serious; and it is difficult to control. In recent months there have been outbreaks of jaundice in hospital dialysis units affecting both patients and staff, and there were deaths among staff. It was necessary to close one unit and to make emergency arrangements for patients already being treated: it was not possible to accept new patients. In another case, expansion of the service has been unavoidably delayed.
  These setbacks reinforce the view of medical experts in this field, which my advisers accept, that it is most important that units should not start treatment of patients until adequate facilities are available. Otherwise we place in danger not only the patients, who will doubtless be willing to accept the risks, but the staff on whom many lives may depend.
  I want to emphasise that the rate at which this service can develop, whether in the hospital centres or in the home, is not at present governed by considerations of money. Funds raised privately cannot, therefore, make a significant contribution, at the present time, to the more rapid expansion of facilities for intermittent dialysis in the National Health Service. I appreciate, however, that many generous people wish to express their support for the development of this service by giving money or by organising collections.
  I welcome these manifestations of people's concern for the welfare of others, and I am anxious only that their gifts should be used to the best effect. This can be ensured if organisers of appeals would inform the regional hospital board for their area before any appeal is launched and then arrange that the terms of the appeal enable the money to be used at a hospital at which intermittent dialysis is to be carried out. Alternatively, the money could be used for research into the cause, detection and treatment of diseases which can cause chronic renal failure.
  Miss Pike: I am sure that the whole country will welcome the Minister's

  1561
  statement and his assurance that the development of this treatment is not being held up by financial considerations. Do we understand that, within 12 months, facilities will be provided to treat about 220 patients in all, and is it not the fact that there are between 1,500 and 2,500 people in the country with serious kidney complaints? In that context, therefore, I am sure that the Minister will agree that a great deal of extra money will be needed in the long run to extend the facilities and the training of people needed in this service. We accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this will be done, and the House welcomes his statement.
  Mr. K. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that she slightly under-estimated the number of people suffering from chronic kidney disease, but the number she quoted represents very roughly the range of the present estimates of those who could be treated by intermittent dialysis. The initial aim in the development programme is to establish up to 20 main centres, each having at least 10 beds, capable of maintaining 25 to 30 patients on twice-weekly dialysis. This service is certainly not at present being held up by lack of money.
  Dr. Winstanley: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's important and valuable statement. May I ask three brief questions? First, will he assure the House that no limit will be placed on the facilities for dialysis of patients requiring it purely for short-term use in the course of an acute illness? Secondly, will he see to it that all possible publicity is given to his valuable statement about donations? Thirdly, will he increase the priorities for home dialysis in view of the very much lessened risk of infection of staff using the apparatus?
  Mr. K. Robinson: I am very glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that facilities for the treatment of acute renal failure are perfectly adequate, and of course this is a treatment of much longer standing than intermittent dialysis for chronic renal failure. I hope that my statement will receive the greatest publicity, because I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the problems involved in this treatment, and certainly
  1562
  misunderstanding which has led to a number of appeals being made all over the country.
  As for home dialysis, as the problems are successfully tackled, I think that inevitably home dialysis will play a considerable part in the expansion of the service, but there are special problems here which it is important to evaluate before its widespread extension can be commended.
  Mr. Archer: So that my right hon. Friend's statement shall not be misunderstood, will he confirm that where the organisers consult the regional hospital boards in advance some of the generous donations being made privately may accelerate the provision of these machines?
  Mr. K. Robinson: I think that I have explained the position with regard to the acceleration of the programme, but certainly I would not do anything to discourage these expressions of generosity, provided that they are done in association with the regional hospital boards which can ensure that the money is directed to the object for which the contributors give it.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Can the Minister say whether any advice of a general nature is given to regional hospital boards about the allocation of these units in view of all the competing claims which there must be? Secondly, is he aware that there is a desperate and critical shortage of these units in Scotland? Are discussions going on between his Ministry and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make sure that a similar advance takes place throughout the country, and the shortage is equally shared?
  Mr. K. Robinson: There is the closest consultation on this, as on other matters, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Any question relating to Scotland should be asked of him.
  As for the development of these units, there is certainly no hesitation on the part of the regional hospital boards to co-operate in the first stage programme which we have laid down, and which I have described to the House. They certainly do not need any urging to provide this service. They are only too anxious to do so as soon as trained staff and accommodation can be made available.
  Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, in your opinion, hon. Members have been given sufficient notice of the Minister's intention to make this statement this morning? I know that a memorandum was published on page 7,206 of the Notices of Questions and Motions, but there was no notice in the Lobby until this morning. It seems to me that more hon. Members might have been present to question the Minister on this important subject if it had been possible to place a notice in the Lobby at, say, 6 o'clock last evening so that hon. Members would have been aware of this before they went home. Hon. Members do not necessarily read all the papers put before them, but I think that they take note of notices in the Lobby, and there is more chance of their doing that at 6 o'clock in the evening than at half-past nine in the morning.
  Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting point, but Ministers usually do not have to give notice that they are going to make statements. I find it rather curious that the hon. Gentleman should complain when the notice is in fact on the Order Paper. This is the first time that I have seen a notice on the Order Paper about an intention to make a statement. Perhaps it is the fact that this is a morning
  1564
  sitting which has complicated things a little.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order. Was it not understood, and were we not told by the Leader of the House, that only unimportant statements would be made at morning sittings, and is not this a statement of a quite different category?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a matter for Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. K. Robinson: Further to that point of order. I said at Question Time on Monday that I proposed to make a statement on this subject later this week. At the time I did not say I would make it on Wednesday morning because it was not then certain that it would be made today.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Surely that does not meet the point, Mr. Speaker. We were told that only unimportant statements would be made. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to make a statement at some unstated time does not meet the objection, which ties up with the objection put by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
  Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting point, but it is not one for Mr. Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RIGHT OF PRIVACY
  10.17 a.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York): I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect a person from any unreasonable and serious interference with his seclusion of himself, his family or his property from the public.
  The purpose of my Bill is to give a right of action in the civil courts for damages for any unreasonable and serious invasion of privacy. Hon. Members may be surprised that this is necessary at this time in the development of our English legal system, since they may have been misled by the adage that an Englishman's home is his castle. But they will have noticed that even those who live in castles often have occasion to complain about interference with their privacy by long-range photographers, and it is even more true that in a humbler station of life there are many who have had occasion in the past, and in the recent past, to complain of increasing invasion of their privacy from many people and in many ways.
  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with his privacy. The curious thing is that our English legal system has never given an explicit right to privacy. It is true that the subject is covered partly by the law of trespass, the law of nuisance, the law of defamation, and I suppose it could be said by the law relating to patents and copyright. But this is only a partial solution to this difficult problem. It touches only the fringe, and there ought to be in the law a right to be left alone if one wishes to be left alone.
  This right has already been accepted by most of the States in the United States. It has been accepted by Canada, South Africa, and several continental countries. The history of its development is rather interesting and rewarding. It started in about 1890, when a certain Mrs. Samuel Warren, a lady in Boston, was giving a reception for her daughter's wedding. Because of the activities of some of the yellow Press she was incensed by the accounts given of that wedding. She got
  1566
  on to her husband about it. It so happened that he was a distinguished legal academic, and that his great friend was Louis Brandeis, who was then Dean of Harvard Law School. Between them they wrote an article which was, perhaps, the most successful piece of legal academic writing. They insisted that there was a right to privacy in American common law. It was some years before the courts accepted this, but eventually they did accept that there was such a right.
  That right has been developed ever since, the most recent example being Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy's use of it to see that her personal grief was not displayed for the interest and prurient curiosity of millions in William Manchester's book. The moral is obvious; if I am to get anywhere with this Bill I should secure the support of Mrs. Harold Wilson and Mrs. Roy Jenkins.
  There have been valient efforts to establish this right. Professor Winfield, in his book on tort, started the agitation about 30 years ago, and it has since been taken up by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. The only attempt ever to express this right in statutory form was by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in another place in 1961, when, by an overwhelming vote, a Second Reading was given to his Bill relating to intrusion by the Press into personal privacy. The Bill was severely criticised by the Press at the time as an attack upon its liberty; indeed, it is possible that it could be misinterpreted in that way.
  In my view, that Bill was too limited, because it appeared that it was an attack on only one kind of invasion of privacy and also because in recent times there have been many occasions when different kinds of invasion of privacy have occurred which would not have been covered by such legislation. It is necessary that legislation in this respect should cover the latest developments, and my Bill therefore establishes a general principle which the courts could act upon and which would enable them to decide in a concrete way whether there had been an invasion of privacy.
  I would define an invasion of privacy as any unreasonable and serious interference with the seclusion of a person himself, his family, or his property from the public. Because of some of the publicity about my Bill hon. Members could

  1567
  be forgiven for thinking that I am bringing in more Bills than the Prime Minister. It has been reported that I am bringing in a Bill about doorstep salesmen; that I am bringing in a Bill about telephone tapping; that I am bringing in a Bill about industrial espionage—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with this Bill.
  Mr. Lyon: —and a Bill about Press intrusion.
  My Bill covers all these subjects. It would establish a general right, which could be interpreted by the courts in certain situations. The right would be restricted by reasonable defences. We all remember the scenes at the hospital when the late Aneurin Bevan was recovering from an illness, and we would all agree that that was an unnecessary invasion of his privacy by some elements of the Press.
  I am aware that the Press say that matters have improved since then, especially as a result of the setting up of the Press Council. That is undoubtedly true, but there are still lamentable lapses from good taste on the part of some members of the Press. Only last year, when two Vietnamese children were brought to East Grinstead Hospital for plastic surgery, some members of the Press tried to get into the hospital to try to photograph them, although the children were disfigured.
  It was unnecessary, from the point of view of the public interest, that Mrs. Donald Campbell should have heard the news of the death of her husband in the full glare of television cameras and publicity. It is unnecessary that inquiry agents should resort to the use of bugging devices and tape recording in hotel bedrooms to obtain evidence of adultery, or use party lines to listen to the telephone conversations of co-respondents. The large extension of telephone tapping which has come to light in recent months is unnecessary and undesirable.
  Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the protection it affords against forms of industrial espionage, which have become all too common in recent months.
  1568
  The most poignant scene in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was when Winston Smith retired from all the mechanical devices that had been established to invade his privacy to a little neglected wood, only to find later on that even there bugging devices had been installed. In a civilised community, where we are living on top of each other, there must be an area of life which an individual has the right to keep to himself. The Bill will protect that right.
  10.28 a.m.
  Sir Neil Cooper-Key: I agree in principle with the need for the protection of individual privacy. Nevertheless, provision should also be made for the protection of the Press in carrying out its duty—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Amendments to the Bill, as the hon. Member proposes. He must oppose the Bill.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: I would feel inclined to oppose the Bill on the ground that if the Bill is not framed sensibly there is a danger that the Press will be penalised. The Press should be protected in carrying out its duty of telling the truth—
  Mr. Speaker: I am not trying to obstruct the hon. Member, but he must make a speech opposing the Bill. He can oppose it for the reasons that he is beginning to adumbrate.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: Perhaps I should declare an interest in the matter, Mr. Speaker, since I am concerned with the Press. In view of what you say, I withdraw my opposition to the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Edward Lyons, Mr. Clegg, and Mr. Lubbock, and Mr. Ben Whitaker.

  RIGHT OF PRIVACY
    RIGHT OF PRIVACY
    Bill to protect a person from any unreasonable and serious interference with his seclusion of himself, his family or his property from the public, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th June and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

  CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIAGE BY AIR ACTS)
  10.30 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): I beg to move,
  That the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pressed for the ratification of the Hague Protocol of 1955, which amended the Warsaw Convention of 1929. This was made possible by Section 1 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, which gives effect in the United Kingdom to the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Protocol, but for a variety of reasons that Section has not yet been brought into force and the Protocol has not yet been ratified. It is the Government's view that this should now be done and that the United Kingdom should join the 49 countries which have already ratified.
  It will, perhaps, be convenient if I remind the House of the purpose of the Warsaw Convention, which is probably the most widely ratified of international Conventions in the field of private law, and of the existing legislation relevant to it. The Convention ensures a measure of international uniformity in the law governing international carriage by air, thereby eliminating difficult and potentially expensive litigation as to which country's law applies. It also confers on passengers and their dependants, and on the shippers of cargo, the reversal of the burden of proving the carrier's negligence, in exchange for which the carrier enjoys a uniform limit of liability, which facilitates the arrangement of insurance. In the absence of wilful misconduct on the part of the carrier, his servants or agents, this limit is at present equivalent to some £3,000 per passenger.
  The Carriage by Air Act, 1932, gave effect in the United Kingdom to this Convention and the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) (United Kingdom) Order, 1952, made under the provisions of that Act, applied the same limit of liability to domestic and other carriage not covered by the Convention. Under the Act and the Order, therefore, the same limit is applied to all carriage, whatever the point of departure and
  1570
  destination or the nationality of the passenger or shipper, and it makes no difference where the accident occurs or which airline is involved.
  I come to the Hague Protocol of 1955, which made a number of amendments to the Warsaw Convention and, in particular, raised the limit of liability from £6,000 per passenger. With the passing of the years, that in turn has come to be regarded as on the low side, and international discussions have begun under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation with a view to the further amendment of the Hague-Warsaw system and, in particular, a further possible increase. It is the Government's hope that these discussions will be successful, but we recognize that several years are likely to pass before a new Convention or Protocol is drawn up, signed and ratified by a sufficient number of States.
  Mr. David Webster: How many States would the hon. Gentleman consider to be "sufficient number"?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I should have thought that 49 would be a sufficient number.
  We think, therefore, as I have said, that we should, without more ado, proceed to ratification of the Hague Protocol and are planning to lodge the instrument of ratification with the Polish Government on 3rd March, 1967. Allowing for the 90 days that mast elapse before it becomes effective, the Protocol will then he in force for the United Kingdom as from 1st June next.
  On the same day the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, which gave effect to the provisions of the original Warsaw Convention, will be repealed by virtue of Section 1(3) of the 1961 Act and the Carriage by Air (Non-international Carriage) Order, 1952 made under it will accordingly cease to have effect. It is proposed that that Order, which, as I have said, applied the Warsaw provisions, with some exceptions and adaptations, to domestic and other carriage not governed by the Convention, should be replaced by the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order, 1967, which is proposed to be made under Section 10 of the Act of 1961, and which is now

  1571
  before the House. The draft Order will, of course, apply, as does the parent Act, to all forms of commercial air service; that is, to charter and inclusive tour flights as well as to scheduled services.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman is entitled under paragraph 8 of the Order to
  "…exempt any carriage or class of carriage…from any of the requirements imposed by this Order".
  Does the Department have any intention of exercising that power in regard to any class of carriage?
  Mr. Mallalieu: There is an intention in regard to flying clubs, with which I shall deal.
  Mr. Webster: Are we today trying to get in line with an existing Convention or are we stepping out of line in the hope that other countries will follow suit?
  Mr. Mallalieu: We are today getting in line with the Hague Protocol to the Warsaw Convention.
  As I was saying, the main provisions of the Order are, first, that it applies the principles of the amended Convention to domestic and other carriage which is not governed by either the unamended or amended Warsaw Convention. As permitted by Section 10, however, a number of "exceptions, adaptations and modifications" are made; for example, the omission of the requirements as to documentation and of the restriction of the courts in which actions may be brought.
  A matter of more general interest, and one which will be particularly welcomed by the House, is that the draft Order raises the carrier's limit of liability in respect of domestic carriage and other types of carriage to which it applies to some £21,000 per passenger instead of the £6,000 which is the limit in the Hague Protocol.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the difference in liability that there will be and, therefore, the difference in advantage to the public between an international journey and a domestic one, would the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the event of a catastrophe, difficulty will be created? For example, if someone is travelling on an international journey from, say, Manchester, that person will simply be
  1572
  covered by the airline's £6,000 liability, while someone else travelling on an international journey, but going first from Manchester to London and then picking up the international flight, will get double cover.
  Mr. Mallalieu: That would depend on where the passenger had booked for. If he had booked from Glasgow to London, the passenger would be covered by one form of cover. If he had booked for an international route he would be covered by another form of cover. However, I am afraid to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is yet a further complication due to an agreement between airlines and the United States for this £21,000 cover to be extended to journeys across the Atlantic.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be perfectly possible for there to be, in the same aeroplane, four people with different tickets proceeding to different destinations and going on different types of journey and that all will be entitled under the Order to entirely different limits of compensation in the event of an accident?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think that that would necessarily occur if they were all travelling in the same aeroplane, since the same liability would appear to apply, but I will look into that point.
  Secondly, this applies the principles of the amended Convention to the carriage of airmail, with similar exceptions, adaptations and modifications. Thirdly, as a transitional provision it applies, with the necessary modifications, those principles to the diminishing amount of carriage still governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention to which the United Kingdom remains a party. Further, it applies the Warsaw-Hague system to gratuitous carriage by the Crown, carriage by the Crown for reward already being covered by that system. Last, as permitted by Section 10(3), it gives the Board of Trade power to exempt any class of carriage from the requirements imposed by the Order.
  If the draft Order is approved, and it and the Hague Protocol come into effect in this country on 1st June, 1967, there will then be three classes of carriage governed by their provisions: first, carriage governed by neither the

  1573
  amended nor the unamended Convention where the £21,000 limit will apply—for example, London to Glasgow, London to Gibraltar non-stop and London to Istanbul non-stop, since Turkey is not yet a party to either the Protocol or the unamended Warsaw Convention; secondly, carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol where the £6,000 limit of liability will apply. An example of that would be carriage between London and Paris, since both the United Kingdom and France will then be parties to the Protocol.
  Thirdly, there is the residual and diminishing amount of carriage still governed by the unamended Warsaw Convention where the £3,000 limit will apply. An example of that would be London to Delhi until such time as India also ratifies the Protocol, although the return journey London—Delhi—London will be governed by the Protocol. In practice, however, a great deal of this carriage, namely carriage involving a stop in the U.S.A., will be governed by arrangements under which the major airlines have voluntarily agreed to a limit of £21,000 as an interim measure pending the further revision of the Convention.
  It is unfortunate, as hon. Members very well sense, that there must be these variations in the limits, but uniformity is not something that we can achieve by ourselves in advance of a satisfactory outcome of the international discussion, which I have mentioned. Nevertheless, our proposals do, I believe, represent a valuable advance on the existing situation where both international and non-international carriage is subject to the same limit of £3,000 and, having regard to the interests of the ever-growing number of the public who travel by air, I am sure that the House will wish to approve the Order.
  10.42 a.m.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: While I do not oppose this Order in principle as such, I wish to raise a rather technical but nonetheless important matter arising out of a certain decision in America on airline liability. It is of profound importance to the airlines and, therefore, to the travelling public. First, I express my apologies to the Minister for probably having to leave before any
  1574
  reply is made to this debate because I have another meeting to attend. I trust that he will acquit me of any seeming discourtesy.
  The position, I understand, is that the Warsaw Convention imposes an absolute liability upon airline carriers in exchange for which they can put a limit on the damages and the compensation which they pay. In this sense it has worked out to the advantage of carriers throughout the world. I understand that last May the United States nearly left the Convention, but was persuaded not to do so. If it had left, the position would have been that in the event of injury being suffered in America the passenger would have had the onus put on him to prove ordinary airline negligence.
  If he could succeed in that respect, his damages might well be unlimited. The provisions of this Convention, to which the United States is still a party, provide that a carrier must deliver a passenger ticket which contains certain particulars one of which is:
  "a statement that the carriage is subject to the rules relating to liability established by the Warsaw Convention".
  The Order says on page 10:
  "The absence, irregularity or loss at the passenger ticket does not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which shall none the less be subject to the rules of this Schedule. Nevertheless, if the carrier accepts a passenger without a passenger ticket having been delivered he shall not be entitled to avail himself of those provisions of this Schedule which exclude or limit his liability".
  In April, 1966, a case was heard in the United States courts called Lisi v. Alitalia Airlines. In that case Mr. Lisi's executors sought damages from Alitalia Airlines in respect of a crash at Shannon in Ireland. The decision of the court was that Alitalia had failed to comply with the provisions of the Convention in that the notice put on the ticket delivered to Mr. Lisi and others was in such microscopic type that it was impossible to say, according to the court, that he had had sufficient notice of the excluded provisions on liability.
  The case came to appeal before the Appeal Court in America last December. As a result of that appeal, great confusion now arises in the minds of those concerned with air carriage. The appeal decision said in effect that a carrier has

  1575
  a duty of conveying the actual notice of the exclusion of liability to a passenger "in such time"—those are the relevant words—as the passenger can take self-protective measures against such exclusion of liability. Examples of that would be that the passenger could take out certain insurance, could come to a decision whether to travel or not knowing that this exclusion of liability existed, or have an opportunity to enter a special contract.
  The practical position is that all over the world tickets are delivered very often only a few moments or a few hours, or perhaps a day or so, before actual departure. From an administrative point of view I am informed that it is entirely impracticable for airlines to give greater notice than they do now. Often it is a day or even hours or minutes before a plane departs. There is no certainty what the words "in such time" mean. If it is suggested that this should be a matter of weeks or perhaps a month to enable the passenger to consider all the ramifications of a separate contract and whether to travel or not, this would place an intolerable burden on the whole business of air travel.
  If the case is upheld—and I under—stand that there is a possibility of it going to the Supreme Court in America—it would have the effect that a British airline which crashed or caused injury to a passenger in America would get the worst of both worlds. It would have the onus of absolute liability and the onus would not be on the passenger. It would be subject to the Convention in that respect, but the airline would not be entitled to limit the damages.
  On this basis I am advised that it would be better if the United States were out of the Convention. Then, although an airline would have unlimited damages to pay, the onus of preventing negligence would be on the passenger. For that reason the Government should be aware of the very great increase in costs which might arise if this decision before the Supreme Court were upheld. The first question which I put to the Government on this Order is whether they are aware of the litigation and decision in the Lisi v. Alitalia case. Do the Government realise that, if the decision is unreversed by the Supreme Court, it will lead to an enormous increase in airline claim costs
  1576
  in the United States? If the decision is unreversed, will the Government give consideration even to withdrawal from the Warsaw Convention on these grounds? What steps are being taken to reverse the effect of this decision?
  In addition, a meeting has just taken place—I believe that it has been adjourned—of an international panel of experts in Montreal which has been looking into the whole question of amendment to the Convention. Could the Government delay their decision until the experts have had a chance of considering the ramifications of this case? Is it possible that the United Kingdom could postpone the ratification of the Hague Protocol in order to see whether it is worth staying in the Warsaw Convention if the Lisi case remains part of the law of the United States?
  I appreciate that the Government might well say that it is vital that we get on with this Order in order to comply with the requirements of the Hague Protocol. If that is so, they should be alerted to the fact that, although we do not oppose the Order in principle. there are a number of imperfections—this is a very profound and important one—and they should seriously consider the possibility of producing an amending Order later when the result of this very vital decision is known.
  10.51 a.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: It would be extremely ungenerous of me to do anything other than welcome this very timely Order. Hon. Members will remember that on the Report stage of the 1961 Act I proposed an Amendment upon which this Order actually improves. My Amendment was lost by one vote. Therefore, I cannot do other than welcome an Order which on many domestic flights—that is, those which are not subject to the exemption procedure—raises the limit of damages to £21,000.
  I must state, however, that the Order still leaves the slight anomaly, which was brought out in 1961 that if someone is killed in a railway train the limit of damages is £24,000 but if someone is killed travelling by air the limit is £21,000. I should have been happier if the figure had been consolidated at £24,000 so that the limit was the same by air on domestic flights as it is for rail accidents. However, I repeat that it

  1577
  would be extremely ungenerous of me not to welcome the very considerable improvement to £21,000.
  In the 1961 debate it was immediately apparent from the reaction of hon. Members that nobody understood the import of the statements on an airline ticket about the limit of liability. Article 8 of the Order reads:
  "The Board of Trade may, subject to such conditions as they think fit, exempt any carriage or class of carriage or any person or class of person from any of the requirements imposed by this Order."
  So far, so good, but it is very important that anybody flying on a domestic flight should know whether his carriage on that flight is or is not exempted; and, if it is exempted, what the effect of the exemption is.
  I must apologise to the Minister of State, Board of Trade for the fact that, as I was due at a meeting of B.E.A. earlier this morning than now, I shall probably have to leave before he commences his winding-up speech. However, I should be very grateful if he could put on the record in that speech what his own guidelines within his Department will be for operating Article 8, so that the public at large can know in what circumstances flights are likely to be exempted, what notice will be given to people that they are exempted, and what the result of such exemption will be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) stated that there are four different classes of potential passenger from the point of view of limitation of liability. My count makes it at least six. There are domestic flights which will be subject to the Order—that is, with a limit of £21,000. There will be domestic flights exempted from the Order under Article 8. There will be domestic flights which do not fall within the provisions anyway, because they are subject to concession—for instance, an airline employee travelling under concession on that airline. Then there are international flights subject to the Order. There will be international flights subject to the Guadalajara Convention. There will be international flights which are not subject to the amended procedures—Turkey being one. Those are six different classes of passenger. I do not claim that it is an exhaustive list.
  1578
  I ask specifically not only that the Minister should give the House the guidelines for the rules he makes but that in making those rules there should be a prominent notice, not just a fine print statement, on all tickets issued under the exemption provisions of Article 8, drawing effectively to the attention of the would-be passenger the fact that it is exempted. Sometimes a ticket contains an announcement that the flight is subject to certain exemptions or conditions, the details of which can be obtained from the ticket office. This notice appears, for instance, on a railway ticket. If the intending passenger asks the booking clerk for a copy of the conditions under which the ticket is issued, he is told that he must go either to Paddington station or somewhere equally remote to obtain the copy. Therefore, to issue, for example at a flying club, a ticket having on it a notice stating that the flight is subject to exemption from the provisions of the Order, without also having prominently displayed a statement of the effect of the exemption, is what I call a lawyer's notice rather than a reasonable person's notice.
  Mr. Grant: In defence of a very great profession of which I am a member, I point out that it is lawyers who draw attention to the smallness and obscurity of type on notices.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That is true, but lawyers have to be employed before they draw attention to it. Reverting to the subject of notice, it is particularly important that it should be comprehensible.
  Where there are such exemptions, which are exemptions from a reasonable limit, it is relevant to rehearse again why it is just and desirable that there should be different limits on domestic flights from those which apply to international flights. The reasons are basically these. It is not only difficult and expensive, but also sometimes impossible, to prove negligence, even in a British court, because so much of the evidence of the cause of the accident is destroyed in the accident.
  It is difficult enough to prove negligence in the case of air accidents in a British court—in the cost of which, incidentally, if people are impecunious they may be assisted through the Legal

  1579
  Aid Fund. It is very much more difficult to prove negligence in a court thousands of miles away where the standards of justice and the court procedures are, to put it mildly, not entirely consistent with our own. The advantage which passengers or their dependants receive under the Warsaw Convention, the Hague Protocol, and the Guadalajara Convention, is that it is no longer necessary to prove the negligence of the airline concerned. It is necessary only to demonstrate that the damage or death resulted from the accident and there is then an automatic entitlement.
  I remark in passing that the limit of damages does not apply when wilful misconduct can be proved against the pilot or aircrew. But this also is extremely difficult to prove when all the people concerned are dead and there is just wreckage left on the ground. Therefore, one may say that, to all intents and purposes, the limit applies and the balance of advantage lies with Measures of this kind.
  On domestic carriage, this is not so to the same extent because people have access to the British courts and they are not debarred for financial reasons. Nevertheless, one must bear in mind that a substantial proportion of the traffic on domestic flights is business traffic rather than holiday traffic. It is fair to say that people who use internal air routes in the course of their profession or occupation are most unlikely to be earning less than £1,000 a year. Capitalising that at, say, 6 per cent., it comes to more than £21,000. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the normal basis of compensation is to capitalise the income which the dead person was receiving.
  I say that merely to show that £21,000 is not an over-generous figure. I hope that the Minister, whoever he may be and whoever the Government may be, will not feel that, now that this excellent Measure has been brought in, it must necessarily run for the next 10 or 15 years unamended. As the level of incomes rises so does the damage suffered by someone incapacitated or by the dependants of a person killed on a flight.
  I welcome the Order, therefore, though without prejudice to pressure for increases in the limit of liability in the future pro rata with the fall in the value of money and the rise in average earnings.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the limit of compensation now to be available for the domestic passenger will create an anomaly in relation to someone travelling, for instance, from the United Kingdom and flying in the United States? It will be an international flight, but the flight across the United States will be a domestic flight. There is a great difference between a domestic trip within the United States, which can be as long as a journey from the United States to the United Kingdom, and a domestic trip within the United Kingdom. Is there not an anomalous distinction here created by the difference between compensation paid for an international flight and compensation paid for a domestic trip?
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: With respect, no greater anomaly is created than is already the case in travel by surface transport in a foreign country, which is subject to the domestic law of the country concerned. I say, in passing that, as I read the present law as amended by the Order, if one is making a journey from one British territory to another without calling at an airport in the United States, it is immaterial whether one overflies the United States or not. It is certainly true that there are many different classes of carriage, but what my hon. Friend says applies whether one travels by ground transport or by air transport. What we are endeavouring to do is to reduce the restriction on damages in so far as we are able to do so, and this Order undoubtedly does that.
  I mention one further matter en passant. Many people take out insurance to cover themselves in excess of the limit of liability imposed. It is all the more important that this insurance cover should be available when Article 8 of the Order is invoked and there is exemption by Ministerial licence. The normal way of obtaining this further cover is by putting a coin into a slot machine with a time-stamping device inside. Out comes a ticket selling the cover, beginning at the time stamped on it by the clock.
  It is common knowledge that the times of greatest risk are on landing and takeoff. It is particularly important, therefore, that the clocks stamping the time are not fast. If a clock is fast it can have the result of marking a time for beginning the insurance cover after the

  1581
  person has taken off in the aircraft. This is not hypothetical. Twice I have been to an airport in the United Kingdom at which the clock was as much as 15 minutes fast. If someone purchased insurance cover immediately before boarding the aircraft and the aircraft then crashed on take-off, the insurance company would not, except ex gratia, be at risk although the passenger believed that he had covered himself. I do not know how far it is possible to deal with this, but it is one of the considerations which the Minister would do well to bear in mind in issuing an exemption under Article 8.
  I end as I began, by welcoming the Order. I wish that it had been brought in much earlier. A long time has elapsed since the passage of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, and I have badgered successive Ministers of successive Governments to be more expeditious in the matter. We shall all be grateful for the Order, and the fewer the exemptions granted by the Minister the more certain will the law be in the knowledge of the average passenger.
  11.8 a.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I am sorry, though the House may be glad, that my remarks must on this occasion be very brief. I am serving on a Standing Committee in which there are liable to be Divisions, and I may be called suddenly. That control is an unfortunate control, but I feel that I must at least say "Thank you" to my hon. Friend the Minister, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). The hon. Gentleman and I five years ago emphasised to the Minister at that time the need to amend the provisions covering carriage by air, and now, like him, I rejoice in the raising of the limit. I endorse every word the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that the Minister will remember that it is not a final sum. We recognise that travel by air is getting safer every day and is now much safer than it was even five years ago. Those of us who use air transport realise that. But the result of an accident in the air is so comprehensive and final as compared with an accident in almost any other medium of travel that the compensation must bear relationship not only to the falling value of money but to that finality. That must be a factor in estimating the compensation.
  Mr. Onslow: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that there is a particular quality about death in an aircraft accident which means that the liability limit should be higher than for death in a car or train accident?
  Mr. Rankin: I may not have expressed myself very well. I believe that travelling by air involves the possibility of finality in an accident, but that an accident is not so liable to occur as in travel by sea or road. In the event of an aircraft accident, the number of survivors is generally very small, if any. It is merely a matter of observance, and from my knowledge of accidents in the air I have no reason to change what I have said. There is certainly always the chance of finality in a railway or bus accident, and so on, but the risk is not so great as it is by air, and therefore I believe that that should affect the figure of damages when an accident occurs.
  I notice that liability starts at the terminal, according to Article 18(3) of the Convention. If I read that accurately, the passenger is regarded as being covered by the liability for compensation from the moment he leaves the terminal.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought forward this improvement in the Carriage by Air Acts, but I feel that the Explanatory Note might have been more comprehensive. I hope that when there is an amendment of the Order the Explanatory Note will tell us exactly what it means and will be fuller than the rather brief comment that this Explanatory Note gives.
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I must disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) over the implied suggestion in his speech that travel by air is more dangerous than travel on the roads. If he looks at the statistics he will find that the number of people killed on our roads every year is many times larger than the number of people killed in air travel in the whole world.
  Mr. Rankin: I did not say anything of the kind. I did not say that travel by air was more dangerous. I said that in the event of an accident the outcome was more certain.
  Mr. Lubbock: That is indeed what the hon. Gentleman said. I disagree with him on that as well, because many minor accidents take place on the airlines which do not result in either the injury or death of a passenger. Perhaps they are not given the same prominence as accidents in which the whole aircraft is lost with all the passengers, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the tables published periodically in Flight and other aviation magazines, he will see that quite a number of accidents occur in which there is no injury to any of the passengers or crew. It would be misleading the public if we suggested that in the event of an accident on an aircraft their chances of being killed were very much higher than in other means of transport. That will not help what both the hon. Gentleman and I wish, which is to encourage more people to travel by air.
  Mr. Rankin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to expand what I said beyond what was contained in the words I used.
  Mr. Lubbock: I hope that I was not doing that, but I think that the hon. Member for Govan may have given that impression during some of his remarks.
  The hon. Member raised the interesting question whether one is covered in transit from the terminal to the airport. As I read Article 18 (3), cover applies only in cases where the contract for carriage from the terminal to the airport is part of the contract for carriage by air from the airport onwards. I understand that one's contract in respect of the bus from the London Air Terminal to Heathrow is separate from the contract one enters into with the airline for a flight from Heathrow to Glasgow, for example.
  It would be of great importance if the Minister could clarify this in his reply, because my impression is that the journey along the M4 in one of the buses is a great deal more dangerous than the journey from Heathrow to Glasgow. A great many passengers would like to know if they were covered on the bus journey as well.
  I hope that my main point will not be a discordant note in the general welcome expressed for the Order. It is the question of the effect of the increased
  1584
  limits on the domestic air fares. I shall not argue with the principle of the Order, because I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that higher limits are necessary and are inevitable in the end. But the Minister might consider delaying the application of the increases to a date after 1st June for domestic airlines. I take it that he has power to do that under paragraph 8, although he said in reply to an intervention from me that that paragraph was intended to apply only to the flying clubs.
  I have made some inquiries of experts, who have given me figures relating to various airlines, of the likely effect of the increased premiums on their domestic fares. Airline "A" says that the increased premiums would amount to £50,000 to £60,000 annually, and would mean a demand for a further increase of 3 to 4 per cent. in its fares. I shall not quote them all. Airline "C" says that the cost of increased premiums would be between £50,000 and £70,000, which amounts to about 5s. on each ticket issued.
  No doubt, the hon. Gentleman will have made some inquiries of the airlines about the financial effects of the Order and will have considered the possibility that they may apply to the Air Transport Licensing Board for increases in the domestic air tariff as a result of the Order coming into operation on 1st June.
  There might be a possible conflict with the Government's policy for prices and incomes, which was referred to in the last Report of the Air Transport Licensing Board. After reviewing a number of applications for domestic fare increases which had been submitted during the year, the Board concluded, in paragraph 77, that
  "…on the basis of the White Paper criteria there was only limited justification for the increases proposed. But the White Paper does not consider the case of an enterprise that has for some time been operating at a loss, and is likely even with the utmost managerial exertions to continue making losses throughout the foreseeable future unless additional revenue is obtained. In such circumstances the enterprise must choose between increasing prices or going out of existence and it is under conditions such as these that the greater part of British domestic air services have been operating."
  Has the Minister taken into account this situation in the domestic market and

  1585
  what is the likely effect on fares if operators now go to the Board and ask for increases to cover the cost of these premiums? Such applications would be allowable within the terms of the White Paper on the Prices and Incomes Standstill and Period of Severe Restraint, paragraph 10 of which says that increases in costs which are the direct result of Government action may be recovered by persons offering goods or services. Therefore, the Board would be quite likely to approve applications for fare increases by the operators. But this is a longwinded process. First, a notice has to be published in the Civil Aviation Licensing Notices. Then time is allowed for objections. Finally, there may be a public hearing and an appeal from the Board's decision to the Minister. I doubt whether airlines operating on domestic routes could take steps to recover the difference between now and 1st June when the Order comes into operation. There will, therefore, be a temptation when they bring applications up not only to recover the full amount of additional premiums but also the difference in the premiums they have had to pay pending their applications being heard by the Board.
  There might be a conflict with the prices and incomes policy during the period of severe restraint, which operates in the first half of 1967, and possibly with any further developments of the policy which may be agreed by Ministers for the second half of 1967. I know that it would be out of order to go into that in detail, but most of us can already see that some form of restraint on prices and incomes will be necessary for a much longer period than the first half of 1967 and this will apply to domestic air fares just as to any other commodity.
  I want some indication from the Minister that these factors have been taken into consideration and that he has in mind the possibility of using the powers conferred on the Board of Trade by paragraph 8 of the Order or of deferring the increase in the limit for domestic traffic at least some time beyond the period of the ending of severe restraint, until a definite announcement is made of Government policy for prices and incomes in the second half of the year.
  11.25 a.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Many of my hon. Friends who might otherwise have wished to take part in the debate because of their interest in aviation are unavoidably absent. They are fulfilling an engagement which was fixed before today's business was announced. That other engagement will enable them to keep themselves informed on important matters in aviation. I mention this because it is an additional example of the disruption and hindrance to the ability of right hon. and hon. Members to deal with other business that the morning sittings have caused.
  I have attended all three morning sittings, and I begin to understand, as I hope the Leader of the House has begun to understand, what a severe strain this must be imposing on the House's servants, inside and outside the Chamber, by no means least on Mr. Speaker. I should be glad to know in any case that this is a matter to which the Leader of the House is devoting particular care and attention.
  I have a number of points I want to put that my hon. Friends would have wished to have examined. My intervention may not therefore be as short as I might otherwise have wished in the circumstances. In so far as the Order represents a move to apply the principles of the Hague Protocol to domestic and non-international carriage, it is a welcome move. It follows, of course, the decision to apply the £6,000 Hague Protocol limit of liability to international carriage by United Kingdom ratification of the Protocol and there is no doubt that the old Warsaw limit of £3,000 had long been outdated.
  The Order also has the effect of raising the limit of liability for domestic and non-international carriage from £3,000 to £21,000. On this and on a number of other general and particular points, I should like to put some questions to the Minister, and I hope that he will be able to answer them at the end of the debate.
  First, what prior consultation did the Department have with the airline operators, both nationalised and independent, before tabling this Order? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been some criticism in the aviation Press of the fact that the Order was brought

  1587
  before Parliament without adequate consultation with or warning of the operators. This way of proceeding is not exactly improving the confidence of airline operators in the sort of treatment they are to expect from the Board of Trade now that it has taken over responsibility for civil aviation matters. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he has chosen this point of time to raise the non-Convention limit—the limit for domestic and non-international carriage—to £21,000? I recognise that B.E.A. has to some extent forced the pace by—and I quote the word—"voluntarily" agreeing to the terms of the Montreal Agreement of 1966 for all its international services. But I am by no means sure that the introduction of the new £21,000 limit under this Order and at this point in time will help to simplify or clarify matters.
  It may be the Minister's view that the £21,000 limit should come to be accepted by all British domestic carriers. But does he feel that he has increased the chances of this by his timing of the Order? Has the Department any powers over British air operators to oblige them to conform in this respect? If so, is it the intention to use such powers? Will he consult the operators before doing so? If he has not got powers to do that, has he any intention of seeking them?
  Mr. Lubbock: He has them.
  Mr. Onslow: I hope that the Minister will take up these points because I am not sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is right in saying that he has these powers.
  Is the Minister aware, further, of the effect of the introduction of the £21,000 limit upon the costs of airline operators? This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Orpington, and it seems—and I have had access to the same sort of figures—that this will cause an increase in insurance premiums which cannot in many cases be absorbed. The remarks of the Board in its report about obligation are open to question but they have some relevance in the present context. It is clear that many operators are up against severe pressure for fare increases and this is likely to be greatest, possibly, in the case of operators whose route pattern is shortest—in other words, which have the least revenue per flight and upon which
  1588
  the cost of the increased premiums will represent the greatest percentage increase in costs.
  The Minister must recognise that the existing licensing processes would prevent the operators from introducing higher fares until the end of this year, even if they were authorised to do so. This must make it very questionable whether this was the right time or the right way to introduce a new domestic limit. There are some other reasons to which I shall return.
  I ask the Minister to clarify the use to which he envisages putting Article 8, which provides for exemptions. Has he any intention of using this to postpone the application of the Order to domestic services for a transitional period, say, until January, 1968, by which time operators might have been able to adjust their tariffs to the increased premium costs? If so, what procedure does he propose to apply for granting exemptions, and for advertising exemptions when granted?
  If it is not his intention to use this Article for that purpose, then for what purpose is it intended? I understand that the Order applies to gratuitous carriage, as well as to carriage for reward, but in the past exemptions have been made in the provisions of existing Acts in favour of bona fide flying clubs.
  In principle, this clearly makes sense, but the making of exemptions can lead to difficulty if the exemptions are not known. Will the Minister undertake to arrange to publish, in some prominent and accessible place, the details of any exemptions which he may make under Article 8? This is a point which was made forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
  There are two other points of detail in the Order. First, can the Minister tell us how the provisions in the Order relating to air mail are to be applied in practice? Clause 4(b) of Schedule 1 of the Order applies to the carriage of mail or postal packets, and Articles 24 and 30 of the Schedule appear to restrict the rights of action to the consignor or consignee of cargo, as airmail has to be treated. Who, in this context, are the consignor or consignee? Is the consignor the member of the public who sends something by air mail? If so, evidently

  1589
  some consequential amendments to the Post Office Acts will be needed. Or is the consignor and the consignee the Post Office in each case? If so, then in this respect the Order seems to be useless to the general public, and, indeed, it could have the effect of enabling the Post Office to be entitled, in the case of loss, to recover more in damages from the airline than they would be obliged to pay out under the very limited international compensation scheme for the senders of air mail. There seems to be the need for clearer drafting. Certainly a definition of who is to be regarded as consignor and consignee would help to reduce the future danger of unnecessary litigation.
  On another point of clarity and definition, can the Minister explain some of the terminology which is used on page 12 of the Order under Part B of Schedule 2? Here we have the terms "The amended Convention", "The amended Warsaw Convention", and "The unamended Warsaw Convention", all appearing within the space of five lines, and all apparently intended to mean much the same thing. This seems to be quite unnecessarily confusing. It should surely have been possible to tighten up the draftsmanship and to eliminate this kind of terminological imprecision.
  Regarding the overall effect of the Order, the Minister is presumably aware that it will not greatly reduce the number of anomalies which already exist in the limits of liability in individual cases. Different passengers sitting next to each other in the same aircraft may be eligible for quite different limits, depending on the type of their ticket, their point of departure, and their ultimate destination. I hope the Minister will take up this point. I put to him the case of a B.K.S. Airlines flight from Leeds to London. There might be a Mrs. X, a Leeds housewife, on a day trip to London. She would be entitled to a limit of £21,000. A Mr. Y, on a weekend trip to Paris, would be entitled to a limit of £6,000, and Herr Z, returning to Vienna, would be entitled to a limit of £3,000 If, however, he flies on from London via B.E.A., he would then find that his limit goes up again to £21,000.
  This seems to be a confusing situation, and it certainly emphasises the importance of securing greater international
  1590
  standardisation, as well as domestic standardisation. Does not this in itself make it premature for the United Kingdom to have introduced the £21,000 limit domestically and for non-Convention carriage in advance of international agreement?
  Can we possibly support a lower limit of liability internationally, and, if not, does this not make it difficult to enable us to enter into any future diplomatic conference with any room for manoeuvre? Will not our commitment to the £21,000 limit make it difficult to persuade other nations to accept the existing Conventions and Protocol? There are still over 30 nations involved in international air transport which are parties to none of these agreements.
  Why did the Government decide to introduce this Order before the meeting of the I.C.A.O. panel of experts in Montreal, and what instructions were given to the British member of that panel? I should probably be out of order if I were to probe too far into the Government's ideas for future progress towards a long-term solution of the problem of keeping the Warsaw Convention up to date, but what is it in the idea of a new convention which so attracts the Minister? Would it not have been possible and better to proceed by way of modification of the existing inter-carrier agreements such as that of May, 1966?
  No doubt the Minister will be aware of the complications which may arise from the case of Lisi v. Alitalia, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant). I hope the Minister will be particularly careful to say what action he sees as being necessary if that case is not reversed on appeal.
  Finally, in the timing of the Order, and in what I regard as the premature commitment to the £21,000 limit, there seems to be a strong suggestion that the Government are meekly following the lead of the United States. It was the threat of unilateral action by the American Government, almost amounting to an ultimatum, which forced airlines to accept last year's Montreal agreement. It seems to some people that we are again capitulating without protest to pressure from across the Atlantic. We know that that pressure may well be renewed in future. While there may well be arguments for working in an orderly and sensible way

  1591
  towards a domestic limit for carriage by air liability which corresponds to the railways limit, as the hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out—and which domestic carriers might ultimately accept if they were properly consulted—I hope that the Minister will assure us that he sees his Department's functions in this respect as being to promote international order rather than, as it appears in some respects at this moment, international chaos.
  11.39 a.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: On the last point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made, we are most anxious to try to get international order. I agree with him that some of the immediate results of this Order will be to increase the anomalies. We are doing all we can to get a full international agreement, and we shall continue to press for that in the hope of ironing out some of the anomalies which still exist.
  The hon. Gentleman, as well, as his hon. Friend, the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), raised the highly technical, but very important, point about the law case Lisi v. Alitalia. I understand that there is a likelihood of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court against the decision of the lower court. The fact that there is dubiety about this is no reason for not proceeding with the Hague Protocol, because a decision in this particular case, as and when it comes, will not affect very large numbers of the routes which the Hague Protocol covers. This Lisi case is being watched by the British Government and the experts of the International Civil Aviation Organisation are watching it with the greatest care. Depending on what the final decision is, we shall have to decide then what action we can take. I am grateful to hon. Members for raising this matter which is clearly of great importance.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), the hon. Member for Woking, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and others were concerned about Article 8 and the exemptions which we might be considering. We have no intention whatever of giving widespread exemptions under this Article. All commercial flying, both scheduled and nonscheduled, will be subject to the provi-
  1592
  sions of the Order. As I said earlier, the exemptions which we have in mind are for bona fide flying clubs and the movement of troops. The ordinary business of the airlines will not be exempted in any way.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton made an interesting comment about clocks in the insurance slot machines showing the wrong time. That is obviously important, but it is something which is not covered by the Order. However, I shall make a point of calling the attention of the various airport authorities to it to make sure that these clocks are kept up to time.
  The hon. Member for Orpington asked whether the Order covered passengers on their way from a terminal to an airport. I am advised that it does not. It deals with accidents in the plane, or when actually loading or unloading the plane, but not in the bus. I should imagine that that would be a matter for a separate contract.
  The Government have recognised, as they must, that insurance costs will go up and that applications for increases in domestic fares may result. This will be considered by the Air Transport Licensing Board which has some obligation to consider increases in the light of the Government's prices and incomes policy. I do not myself want to make any pronouncement on that, because, I understand, I might be called upon to make a final decision on such applications and it would be altogether wrong for me to pre-judge them.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman says that he regards the A.T.L.B. as having some obligation to have regard to the Government's prices and incomes policy. Does it have any statutory duty to do so?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I understand that it does.
  There were several consultations between the Board of Trade and the operators, B.O.A.C., B.E.A., B.I.A.T.A. and insurance interests. I cannot pretend that there was absolutely unanimous agreement, for there was not. It was agreed that the limit should be raised, but there was disagreement about the exact figure. We tried to pick what we thought was the most sensible figure and that most likely to be adopted internationally.

  1593
  We have no present power to compel British operators to conform to the £21,000 limit and beyond this Order we are not proposing to seek such power at present. We intend to wait until the international negotiations are complete. A number of fairly detailed questions have been asked and I will make a point of writing to the hon. Members concerned.
  In general, the House has given a welcome to the Order and I in turn give the assurance that this is not just a once-and-for-all settlement of the matter. It must be kept continually under review in view of the law cases and possible changes in the value of money and so on. We give an assurance that that will be done and in the light of that assurance I hope that the House will now agree to accept the Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SALOP)
  11.45 a.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Salop (No. 2) Order 1966 (S.I. 1966, No. 1529), dated 6th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th December, be annulled.
  Sir John Langford-Holt: On a point of order. Can I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? In paragraph 4 on page 5 of the Order there is a reference to a series of maps called the boundary maps, 54 in number. Throughout the Order there are references to these maps. I estimate that in the first four Schedules, for example, there are about 80 references to the maps and parts of them. Column 2 of Schedule 5 on page 58, for instance, refers to
  "The parts of the parish of Condover numbered E 4 and E 5 on boundary maps 19, 24. 25 and 26…"
  Lower down it refers to
  "that part of the parish of Astley numbered E 3 on boundary map 15…"
  and the final paragraph refers to
  "that part of the parish of Whittington numbered E1 on boundary maps 1, 2, 5 and 6 and that part of the parish of Ellesmere Rural…"
  and so on.
  I have been to the Library and to the Vote Office in an effort to get a sight of these maps, or to get a copy of them. I have been unable to do so. How are hon. Members supposed to deal intelligently with an Order if they have no access to these maps which are absolutely vital to an Order which deals with boundaries?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I have had no notice of this question, but I can appreciate the difficulties in which hon. Members find themselves. I will arrange at once for inquiries to be made and I will endeavour to arrange for copies of these maps to be made available either in the Library or in the Vote Office. As soon as I have any information, I will make an announcement about it in the House.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for not having given you notice. However, always optimistic, I recently

  1595
  inquired in the Vote Office, thinking that at any moment these maps might appear. How is the House placed? I am anxious to listen to the debate with an intelligent ear, but how can the House have a discussion of an Order which is as obviously incomplete as this?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This Order was made on 6th December and laid on 12th December, which is some two months ago. I understand that the maps in question are printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, by the Ordnance Survey, and I take it that it would have been open to any hon. Member before now to have made an application on a green form for a copy of these maps.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon Thames): Further to that point of order. Although I am sure that the House will treat with great respect what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nonetheless has it not been said from the Chair on numerous previous occasions that, when a matter is due to come before the House, there is an obligation on the Government to secure that the House has available such necessary documents as will enable the House properly to come to a decision? In this case, as I understand it, the Order itself refers explicitly and in terms to the maps. Difficult though the Order is to comprehend with them, it is impossible to comprehend without them. Has it not been the practice of the Chair to insist that the Government should not put the House in a difficulty by failing to make available everything necessary for the House to conduct its debate, any documents which may be necessary when the House is debating a matter?
  As I understand it, the House is being asked to come to a decision whether to approve an area in this Order. It is accepted that the Order is not comprehensible without these maps, and it is apparently accepted that they are not available. Surely it is for the Chair to protect the proceedings of the House from being made, to use a colloquialism, a nonsense of, by the inability of the Government to provide the necessary materials. Can the Parliamentary Secretary help us?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Like
  1596
  you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had no notice of this point, but I am advised that this is the normal custom. If there had been any hint that any information was wanted, or any hint of dissatisfaction with the service that we were providing, we would have provided the maps immediately. We are very anxious to provide them. I am advised that we have acted in the normal way in these matters and we assumed that there was no objection. I am extremely sorry if hon. Members have been inconvenienced by this. It is not through any desire of ours to hide anything. We are perfectly happy to provide any information to any hon. Members if we have warning.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is that it is quite definitely within my recollection, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, that directions have been given by the Chair on previous occasions that it is the duty of the Government of the day to make available to hon. Members all documents relevant and necessary for the consideration of Orders coming before the House. Each Order must be dealt with on its merits. There may be times, obviously, when it is not easy to see exactly what documents some hon. Members may consider relevant.
  I would hope that in future when Orders of this kind come before the House any maps referred to in the Order are made available. In this case it is perhaps unfortunate that the request made by the hon. Member was not brought to the notice either of the Chair or of the Government until just now. In the circumstances all that we can do is to proceed as best we can, and ask the Minister to arrange for copies of these maps to be made available as soon as possible.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: Further to that point of order. I seem to remember that when we were debating the arrangements for the redrawing of the various boundaries in Greater London, and dealing in particular with the amalgamation of various boroughs on other occasions, there was incorporated in the White Paper before the House a large-scale map showing these boundaries, carefully drawn so that hon. Members could understand and study them. I also

  1597
  remember an occasion when we were dealing with British military bases in Cyprus, when again large-scale maps were provided to hon. Members as part of the information before them in the White Paper. Here we have such a paltry and small-scale map as to make it quite impossible for hon. Members to appreciate the terms of the Order. That being so, would it not be wiser if consideration of the Order were deferred until we have these maps available?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Each case must be dealt with on its merits. We had a similar Order last night, dealing with the Hartlepools, which contained a map, which hon. Members who took part in the debate, found perfectly adequate. It is not always useful to draw analogies from previous Orders. This point having been raised, perhaps the Minister can indicate how long it would take for maps to be made available.
  Mr. MacColl: In the Library there is the original Report of the county review containing a very good map, but I appreciate that it is not the map referred to, and I realise that this is not an answer. I do not want to blithely suggest that we adjourn discussion of this Order, because it is on a negative Resolution and it might look as if I was playing for time, hoping that the time might expire. I am here to defend the Order and I am anxious to do so in every way that I can. If any hon. Member had so much as whispered that there was any point to be made, or any further information needed, we would certainly have made it available.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: I apologise for not having given the hon. Gentleman notice of this, but I made one visit to the Library and two to the Vote Office, as an indication that I was hoping that something would turn up. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I know all the boundary changes referred to in the map, because I know the district well, but I feel most strongly that the House has a right to all the information before it reaches a decision.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to raise the point, but it is also fair to observe that neither the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), in whose name this Prayer is put
  1598
  down, nor any of the other hon. Members whose names are attached to the Prayer, has raised the point. It must be a matter for the hon. Member for Oswestry to decide whether he wants to move the Motion.
  Mr. Biffen: It would be my wish to proceed with the Motion. I appreciate the point of Order that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) and I believe that it touches upon the rights and facilities available to hon. Members. I want to make it quite clear that I have no desire to see these maps. I am only too well aware, as is my hon. Friend, of the circumstances in Shropshire, and therefore I did not make any such request. At no stage did I feel inhibited by the absence of the maps, but the point raised touches upon a rather different issue of principle, namely the availability of documents to the House. I would not wish this to be a point upon which consideration of this Motion should not proceed this morning—
  Mr. Jasper More: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but before he proceeds, may we have some undertaking from the Government that time will be made available for discussing the Order? We are limited by the 40-day rule to the 15th February, when discussion of the Order must be completed. May we have an undertaking from the Government, in view of the time that we have occupied discussing this point of order, and the time that may elapse before obtaining these maps, that an extension of the 40 days would be granted to make up for lost time, before the matter is disposed of finally?
  Mr. MacColl: I do not think that we can extend the 40 days. It would probably mean an amendment of the Statutory Instruments Act, or whatever relevant statute governs the matter. The question of time is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I know his keen interest in this matter. No doubt he would like to find time if this is possible. I am in the difficulty that this Prayer has been put down and I am here to defend it. I am at the service of the House, but I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he will be able to find

  1599
  time if there is no time. I will draw his attention to this point.
  12 noon.
  Mr. Biffen: After that auspicious start, I now address myself to the Prayer. I shall keep my remarks reasonably brief because other hon. Members wish to speak and we do not have as much time, perhaps, as the House would wish.
  The Salop (No. 2) Order is of great significance for the future of local government. The background is probably well known, and I apologise to hon. Members if I make points with which they are already over-familiar. The Local Government Act, 1958 provided for a series of county reviews, and it is that which has now been set aside by the establishment of the Royal Commission on Local Government. The House is this week to conclude the stages of the termination of the county reviews Measure. The Royal Commission is expected to report in about 18 months. In the meantime, however, under the 1958 Local Government Act. Shropshire, a pioneer county, had concluded its review. Many of the recommendations were generally acceptable, and are accepted, and the Salop (No. 1) Order went through the House without any Prayer.
  This No. 2 Order, however, raises matters of much wider significance, and we are now, alas, presented with a situation in which the Order in its entirety must be either rejected or accepted. This was not my wish at the outset, and it was only Ministerial intransigence on certain of the proposals contained in the Order which led to the present problem.
  My objection to the Order is rooted in Article 5, the article which provides that the Borough of Oswestry as now existing will lose its identity by being merged into the surrounding rural district. The merger is not desired by the borough and it was not initially desired by the rural district council. The recommendation of the county council when first made was received with considerable opposition by both these authorities, and this opposition has been persisted in with great vigour and tenacity by the borough council ever since. Moreover, the Order raises the whole question of what size a borough has to be to ensure that it has an independent future in local government.
  1600
  Oswestry has a rateable value of about £490,000 and a population of about 12,000. In one sense, therefore, confirmation of this Order will immediately and categorically prejudice any borough which is of that size, or smaller. On another interpretation of the Order, only one borough retains borough status in the county of Shropshire as a result of these proposals, that is, the Borough of Shrewsbury, with a population of 50,000 and a rateable value of about £2½ million. That interpretation, therefore, must cast doubt on every existing independent local authority which is smaller than Shrewsbury.
  These points are of sufficient weight and moment to have stayed the Ministry's hand on the earlier representations which were made. But when I speak of the existing size of Oswestry, this is, as it were, a static argument which does not look to the future. Yet there are many indications that Oswestry itself will grow in size, these coming not least from the county council itself which was the original author of the plan to denude Oswestry of its borough status. Only recently the county council commented that Oswestry might play a part in the solution of the West Midlands overspill problem. I hold in my hand a cutting from the Oswestry and Border Counties Advertiser which says of the County Council that,
  "The meeting was held specifically to discuss the creation of a new town at Dawley, but Oswestry was mentioned by Sir Philip Magnus Allcroft, chairman of the Planning Committee".
  The dismemberment of Oswestry is not a straight take-over by the surrounding rural district. The rural district will take over from the existing Borough of Oswestry responsibilities for health, housing, collection of rates and public baths, probably in terms of staff employed accounting for about 50 per cent. of the activities of the existing borough. The county council will take from the existing borough highways, lighting and library responsibilities. But the "Rural Borough of Oswestry" which remains, as it were, almost as a parish council authority left behind after the transfer of the activities of the existing borough to the surrounding district, will still have responsibility for parks, open spaces and the market.
  The market is vital to the demonstration of the nonsense behind the Order.

  1601
  In staff terms, possibly one-third or more of the responsibilities of the old borough will be retained by the rural borough, and the market is the thirteenth largest in the country. It is equal in throughput to the Smithfield Market in Shrewsbury Initially, the argument that there would be a marriage of the natural interests of the surrounding rural area and of the Borough of Oswestry turned upon, for example, such common facilities as the market. Yet when the Order is laid we find that the market, which more than any other single facility might be expected to tie the interests of the rural district and the borough, still remains with the borough. This is proposed, as I understand it, because the market functions under charters in the Corporation Acts of Oswestry and not under the Food and Drugs Acts.
  It is all very well to explain why, at the end of the day, it has not been possible to transfer the market to the new authority, but it was exactly this kind of consideration which, had it been given proper merit by the county council and by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government before its endorsement of the county council's decision, would have demonstrated that this was a botched-up job of local government reform.
  On all the indications so far, the new enlarged council of Oswestry rural district, including now the bulk of the work of the Oswestry borough, will have a sizeable staff—probably 59 or so—running at an estimated annual cost of over £77,000. Is this the product of economies of scale? All the indications are that, if one takes into account the cost of the new enlarged powers of the Oswestry rural district, the powers left to the rural borough of Oswestry and the added responsibilities taken on by the county council, the aggregate cost of local government in the new situation will be far greater than it was in the situation which has been set aside by the Order. How consistent is that with the Government's general policy of seeking to restrain costs and prices? Indeed, this is a highly controversial decision and, even now, we should ask ourselves whether this dislocation of local government in Shropshire should proceed. It is a decision which is costly to the ratepayers. It is a decision which pays scant regard to local feelings or to the realities of
  1602
  local government finance. It certainly shows a disrespect for the prospective findings of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
  A rejection of the Order would not just be a victory for Oswestry. It would be a victory for the House of Commons in the face of a paralysing Whitehall insensitivity which has so ill-advisedly set the Minister on this unhappy course.
  12.10 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison (Eye): You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House may be surprised that I, sitting for an East Anglian constituency, should want to say a few words on the Order. I have never found any Member of the House who has to deal with more local authorities than myself. I deal with 10—one county council, two municipal boroughs, three U.D.C.s and four R.D.C.s Eye, one of the municipal boroughs, is over 700 years old and gives its name to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, but it is the smallest borough in England.
  Mr. More: I was about to claim that honour for the Borough of Bishop's Castle.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that it would be in order to refer either to Eye or to Bishop's Castle in connection with this Order.
  Mr. More: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bishop's Castle is included within the scope of the Order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then I apologise. I do not think that it would be in order to deal with the circumstances of Eye in connection with the Order.
  Sir H. Harrison: I was making that earlier reference merely to illustrate that it is the smaller boroughs which are concerned about this type of Order. The Royal Commission is sitting, and I understand that these boroughs believe that this Salop Order is the thin end of the wedge. I should like an assurance from the Minister on behalf of my constituents that, if he gets this Order through and it is not annulled, he does not have many other plans for other counties.

  1603
  It is not for me to take part in debate of the details of what is included in the Order. I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said. This is the sort of thing which will arise in other counties and other ratepayers will be put to extra expense. This is why I believe that this Order and others like it should be held up. This is why I shall vote to annul the Order.
  12.13 p.m.
  Mr. Gerry Fowler: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in arguing about Oswestry market. Nor can I accept the argument that excessively small local authorities should survive. I should like the Minister to make some reference to two rather more important matters of principle.
  The first matter has already been alluded to by the hon. Member for Oswestry, namely the fact that the Order appears to anticipate the findings of the Royal Commission. Alternatively, if it does not, what we are saying is that there will be another reorganisation of local government in Shropshire in two years' time. This would be a rather wasteful procedure. My hope is that when the Royal Commission reports we shall be in a position to set up much larger first-tier units of local government and much larger second-tier units, or district councils, too.
  I would argue that some of the district councils set up by the Order are not large enough. Thus, the population of the new Rural District of Clun and Bishop's Castle is only just over 10,000. The product of a penny rate in that area is about £580. Yet, strangely, the municipal Borough of Oswestry, the product of whose penny rate was over £1,800, is abolished as a separate entity by the Order.
  Not only is Clun and Bishop's Castle too small, in my view, both in terms of its rate revenue and in terms of its potential attraction to officials and, indeed, to able councillors, but the Rural District of Ludlow still will have a population of only between 23,000 and 24,000. The Rural District of Market Drayton, with a population of about 15,000, is left untouched.
  Mr. More: With reference to the hon. Gentleman's comment about Clun and Bishop's Castle, although we may be small we specialise in quality.
  Mr. Fowler: I do not think that I need reply to that. These units will not be viable units vis-à-vis any very large new regional authority which could be set up after the Report of the Royal Commission. Nor would they be able to stand up to the claims and the expertise of any large town included in the same regional authority as a result of the Royal Commission's Report. In any case, it would be inefficient to have too large a number, a plethora, of small authorities under one large authority.
  I think, for that reason, that the Order anticipates a particular finding of the Royal Commission, or action by the Government on the Report of the Royal Commission, whereby the rural west of the West Midlands—Shropshire and Herefordshire—would be hived off from the urban concentration to the east so that the overspill areas and the hinterland of the conurbation would still be separated in terms of local government from the conurbation they serve. The Order points to that conclusion and it is not a conclusion that I very much like. It will leave us with exactly the same problems in relation to coherent planning of overspill or of regional transport as we have at present.
  Another matter is the question of representation on the new local authorities. We have improved the present situation, but we are still leaving ourselves with a semi-democratic rather than a democratic structure of local government.
  Take the Ludlow Rural Distrct. Ludlow Borough has nearly one-third of the electorate of the new rural district, although it is given only one-quarter of the councillors. Half of the electorate of Ludlow Borough live in one of the four wards of that borough, but that will have only three representatives on the new Rural District Council, whereas the rest of Ludlow will have nine. Ludlow Borough as a whole is under-represented. That particular ward is heavily under-represented. In that ward each councillor will represent about 850 electors, whereas in the parish of Wheathill in the same rural district there will be one councillor for 105 electors. That is not democracy.

  1605
  The same applies in nearly all the other rural districts. In Bridgnorth Borough each councillor will represent an average of 540 electors, while the egregious Quatt Malvern has one councillor for 148, about one-quarter of that number of electors.
  We shall retain the present situation in which the country dominates the town, but we shall exacerbate the present situation, because we are putting urban areas into rural districts and ensuring that people in those urban areas, even when they provide a large part of the rate resources and even when a large part of the population live there, nevertheless will be under-represented and dominated by the country. If I dare mention this, this also has a political implication. It means that one party is likely to dominate these new rural district councils.
  It also means, finally, that there will be a plethora of uncontested elections in some of the excessively small rural electoral areas. Thus, in the Clun R.D., Shelve has just over 60 electors. It is highly unlikely that there will be many contest for that seat. If anyone disputes what I say, I would point out that in 1964, in the then Clun Rural District, there were 31 seats at stake and there were no contests. In the Ludlow Rural District that year there were 13 seats at stake, and there were no contests. That, to my mind, does not advance the cause of local democracy; nor does this Order.
  In the case of county council electoral areas which it does not touch, it still leaves us with the situation where one of the electoral divisions of Shrewsbury Borough has an electorate of 7,000. Wellington in my constituency returns a county councillor with 6,000 electors, whereas in Ludlow Rural District there are two county council electoral divisions with 1,500 and 1,700 electors. That is scarcely democratic.
  This Order is not the radical reform which is required of local government. Far from being forged in the white heat of the scientific revolution, it has all the marks of being forged in Abraham Darby's furnace at Coalbrookdale, a worthy product of the eighteenth century. It will not supply the needs of local government in the twenty-first century, and I hope that the Minister will think again.
  12.20 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: I am happy to agree with much of what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has said. He appeared to deal in much more detail with areas in my constituency than in his own. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to Shelve, for example. If he had met some of the inhabitants, he would have known that they were people of exceptional judgment, interested in their public affairs and sensibly agreed on whom they wanted to represent them on the Clun Rural District Council. That goes for a lot of that area, in which I live. Consequently, I feel myself entitled to speak about it.
  I was also surprised at the hon. Member's suggestion that what had been done was done in such a way as to have some political motivation about it. I was unaware that rural parishes were supposed to be more inclined to one political party and that urban parishes were more inclined to another. Perhaps, with his long experience of Shropshire, the hon. Gentleman has made a special investigation and can explain.
  Mr. Fowler: I did not suggest that this had been done with any political motivation. I said quite the reverse—that there has been a lack of political motivation here which is staggering.
  Mr. More: That explanation is more remarkable than the original speech.
  As one who has witnessed at close quarters the painful processes which have had to be gone through to get this Order to the House of Commons, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not forged in the furnace of Abraham Darby, but largely in the cloistered calm of our ancient Shire Hall building, now standing semi-derelict in the main square of Shrewsbury. In the days when we still occupied it, I sat through a number of discussions, watching the different stages of embarrassment on the faces of members of our Review Panel whose task it had been to bring these recommendations before us. They were all public-spirited gentlemen, colleagues of mine on the Salop County Council, glowing with public virtue and devoting a great deal of time to what must have been an uncongenial task.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the same process took place in the County of Gloucestershire? As a result of its deliberations, the review was abandoned and no further action was taken. Would he not agree that it is very odd that my constituents should have been put to the trouble for nothing, whereas this Order is to go through?
  Mr. More: It is very odd, and I regret that the same did not happen in Shropshire. A lot of trouble might have been avoided for everyone. However, these are matters of main principle to which I wish to return before I leave the topic.
  As the Prayer was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on the subject of the Borough of Oswestry, perhaps I might begin with a brief reference to the boroughs with which I am concerned. They are Ludlow, Bridgnorth and Bishop's Castle.
  The hon. Member for The Wrekin has pointed out the unequal representation which the Order involves. There might be rather different feelings in the Borough of Ludlow itself, which is one of Britain's most famous and perhaps the most lovely to look at. Its charter was granted in the year 1189, and it is a borough in which the mayor goes officially to the parish church every Sunday and, until a few years ago, its Member of Parliament was prayed for by name. I might add that that is no longer thought necessary today.
  Bridgnorth is an equally ancient and historic borough with a charter dating from the year 1157. A Stuart monarch said that it had the most lovely prospect in England from its castle walls. Bishop's Castle has a charter dating from 1203. I do not think that our discussion of the Order should proceed without some lament that these ancient and historic corporations should be coming to an end in this way.
  Before coming to the general principle, there are two other places which I might mention. On page 56 of the Order, hon. Members will see a reference to the Parish of Woodhouse. The proposal in that case seems to be a bit of bureaucratic nonsense which might have been avoided. It is to abolish the Parish of Woodhouse and put it into Hopton Wafers. The Parish
  1608
  of Woodhouse contains precisely two inhabitants, living in the same house. The parish meeting is probably one of the best-attended and best-conducted in the whole country. It meets probably every evening in front of the television set in the drawing room of my constituent, Mrs. Childs, and there is always a 100 per cent. attendance. This piece of bureaucratic tidying-up is difficult to understand.
  I also draw the attention of the House to page 60 of the Order. Schedule 6 details the number of councillors which it is proposed to allow for the different Shropshire rural districts. Among other parishes in the Rural District of Bridgnorth, one sees the name of Ditton Priors. I am astounded to see that in the case of Ditton Priors it is proposed to allow only one councillor.
  The House may be aware of what Ditton Priors has suffered in the last three weeks. There has been an invasion by the Ministry of Defence, with a large ammunition dump installed, and a farmers' field invaded and arbitrarily converted into a car park. The Shropshire lanes have been invaded by great fleets of ammunition lorries. Private rights have been overriden, and there has been a total disregard of what should have been done in the interests of local farmers—in the resale to them of land which had been taken arbitrarily from them under the stress of war. In order adequately to represent the rights of that disgracefully treated parish, we ought to see provided in the Order not one councillor but twelve or twenty—
  Mr. Ridley: One hundred.
  Mr. More: Even a hundred—to declare the rights and wrongs of this disgraceful matter. That is what ought now to be given greatly increased weight in the Rural District of Bridgnorth. It need not necessarily be done as a permanency, but, until the wrongs have been righted, the Order ought to be amended so that Ditton Priors can have a greatly increased representation when these matters come up for discussion by the rural district council. On account of Schedule 6 alone, the Order ought to be withdrawn and amended with a provision to that effect.
  I take it that the debate on this Motion will be continued on another

  1609
  day, because I am only at the very beginning of my observations. If the time of the House permits, I wish to say a great deal more on the subject of the Salop Order.
  And it being half-past twelve o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, being of opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the Motion was entered upon, the time for Debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)), and the Debate stood adjourned till Monday next, pursuant to Order (Sittings of the House (Morning Sittings)).

  SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
  12.30 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: should like, first, to congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) on his translation to the Ministry of Defence. Any hon. Member would be proud to speak for the Royal Navy from that Dispatch Box. I must admit that I envy the hon. Gentleman, but I hastily add that I do not envy him having to reply to this debate.
  We are to discuss the Simonstown Agreement between Britain and South Africa. The House will recall that this Agreement was signed in 1955, and that the main terms were as follows: first, it provided for the defence of sea communications in an area vital to the free world. Secondly, it provided for South African naval expansion, and it laid down that ships would be built by British yards. Thirdly, it provided for British naval command in both peace and war, and for the use of the Simonstown base in both peace and war. It also provided for other facilities in other parts of South Africa for British forces, and it stated that the British C.-in-C. was to have operational command in a war in which both countries were involved.
  In short, the Agreement provided our country with everything that she wanted if South Africa was a co-belligerent or if she was at peace. It did not commit Britain to help South Africa if South Africa alone was involved in hostilities. I suggest, therefore, that the Agreement was very much to our benefit. It is quite clear that it was a package deal, tied to the purchase of British warships, and it is inherent in that deal—certainly
  1610
  there is a moral obligation—that these warships should be supplied with spare parts and ammunition, and I shall come to this question a little later.
  On 3rd February, at column 195–6, in answer to a Written Question from myself the Government said that representatives of our Government and of the South African Government met in Cape Town on 25th to 27th January of this year to discuss certain aspects of the Simonstown Agreement. It also said that the British C.-in-C. South Atlantic would be withdrawn, that the frigate normally on the South African station would be withdrawn, that alternative command arrangements were being worked out, and that the whole question of British naval representation was under discussion.
  What does all that mean? If the C-in-C South Atlantic is to be withdrawn, what is to happen to the very important communication and intelligence facilities operated by his staff in Southern Africa? I would remind the Minister that the intelligence officer on the staff of the C-in-C South Atlantic is responsible for the whole continent of Africa from Senegal in the west, to Tanzania in the east. He is also responsible for the Antarctic and half the continent of South America. This is a vitally important intelligence post and I should like to know how the British Government will be apprised of this important intelligence if the C-in-C and his staff are withdrawn. I have a particular interest in this, because, traditionally, the S.O.I. South Atlantic has always been a member of the Royal Marines.
  What is to happen to the command in war time? I have already shown the House that the Agreement laid down that the British C-in-C would have command in war. If we are not to provide a C-in-C in South Africa, or any ships, how is this Agreement to be maintained?
  Perhaps more immediate is the whole question of the provision of spare parts and ammunition for the frigates and destroyers which South Africa has bought from us since the signing of the Agreement. I submit that the Government have a rather guilty conscience over this, because on 16th November last my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) asked about the supply of live ammunition for South African ships, and in

  1611
  column 107 he was referred to the Prime Minister's statement in November, 1964. On 28th November my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) asked much the same question. He was told that spare parts and practice ammunition were being supplied. No mention was made of live ammunition. On 1st December I asked a similar Question, and was referred to the United Nations resolution of 1964. On 14th December I asked the same Question and was told that there was no obligation under the Simonstown Agreement to supply live ammunition, which showed, by implication, that it was not being supplied. Finally, on 25th January of this year my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked the same Question and was told that only practice ammunition was being supplied. This was the first time in two months' questioning that the Government were prepared to clearly admit that they were not supplying live ammunition to South Africa.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Has my hon. Friend noticed that on page 4 of the Simonstown Agreement it says that the British Admiralty agree to act as agents for the Union Government in the matter of the supply of spare parts and ammunition, and does not he think that it is disgraceful of this Government to break an obligation of this nature?
  Mr. Wall: I certainly do agree. It is not only the possibility of a legal breaking of a contract, which the Agreement is. It needs better legal brains than mine to elucidate whether it has been broken, but I am convinced, and I think that the House is, too, that we have a moral obligation here. In the past we have refused to supply ammunition to the ships of nations engaged in war, but now, in peacetime we are refusing to supply ammunition to the ships of a friendly nation which is defending the Cape route which is so important to Britain.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are moral obligations to the United Nations which should take precedence over obligations to South Africa?
  Mr. Wall: I shall come to the cant and hypocrisy about moral obligations to the United Nations.
  1612
  In the Yorkshire Post on 6th February there was a report that spare parts for Buccaneer aircraft, which were built in my constituency and supplied to South Africa some years ago, were not being supplied. If this is so, it is a direct contravention of what the Prime Minister promised in this House. It is also reported that spare parts for Centurion tanks were also being held up. The tanks were supplied to South Africa, in accordance with the undertaking that she would supply armoured forces in the Mediterranean area should the need arise.
  I think that we have to examine in more detail the excuse for evading these moral obligations. In the past, under Conservative Governments, the policy adopted since 1954 was that we should not supply arms to South Africa which could be used for internal purposes, for example to quell civil disturbances. I am thinking of small arms, armoured cars, and so on. I think that that fulfilled our obligation to the United Nations. The Government felt that the defence of the South Atlantic was of vital importance to this country, and continued to supply weapons required by South Africa to maintain this security, but, on the advent of a Labour Government, they decided, in view of the Security Council Resolution of June, 1964, as announced by the Prime Minister on 17th November, 1964, that they would no longer supply arms or equipment to South Africa. At the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) denounced this as an abrogation of the Simonstown Agreement. This was denied by the Prime Minister who went on to threaten the Prime Minister of South Africa, who was making rumbling noises at that time, that he could not unilaterally denounce the Simonstown Agreement because the Agreement could be denounced only after consultation between both sides, which is the argument the Malta Government are using today.
  I warned the House at that time after the Prime Minister's statement that if we persisted in this policy we would not only lose the orders for supplying arms to South Africa, but that decision would affect our normal industrial trade. I hope to show the House that this prophecy is being fulfilled. What worries me more than this is the denunciation of the spirit

  1613
  in which the Agreement was signed. Apparently we can refuse to fulfil our moral obligations, yet we expect South Africa to fulfil hers. She has been extraordinarily co-operative. She has fought on our side in two wars and her ports were of immense value to this country during the Suez crisis. Although there has since been disagreement between us about the conduct of her internal affairs, she is still willing to co-operate with us in the revised Agreement.
  What is the real reason for the renegotiation of the Agreement? I suggest that there are four possibilities. The first is the official reason given by the Government, which covers a multitude of sins—defence savings. The staff of the C.-in-C. consists of 14 officers and 50 ratings. Will the Minister tell us what the saving will he in hard cash, allowing for the loss of the intelligence facilities to which I have referred? Will he also tell the House what will be the total loss due to our refusal to supply arms to South Africa? Fighter aircraft are now being supplied by the French. As a result, the French are superintending the birth of the South African aircraft industry, which will be of immense importance in the future. Italy is supplying 200 training aircraft, and there are reports that the three submarines that we all knew would have been ordered from this country are now to be ordered from another European country. The value of that order is estimated to be about £40 million.
  We have refused to supply Bloodhound and the Maritime Comet. This again is another illustration of the Government's guilty conscience. On 10th February, 1966, I asked why there was a refusal of an export licence for Maritime Comets to South Africa, and the answer was that no application had been made. The Government knows that the South African Government inquires privately whether an export licence is likely to be given, and if they are told "Yes" they at once formally start negotiations to place an order, but if they feel that they are going to leave themselves open to a public snub by a Government refusal they will not ask for an export licence. I suggest that the Government statement in reply to this Written Question underlines the extraordinary policy that the Government have adopted.
  1614
  I should like to know what the total loss is to British industry. It may be as much as £150 million—just about equivalent to the amount that we are spending in our economic war against Rhodesia. Why should this situation exist? Is it because we dislike apartheid? If so, how can Bloodhound or submarines be used to enforce apartheid? The whole idea is ridiculous.
  The second possible reason for this procedure by the Government is, however, that they wish to demonstrate their dislike of apartheid. Let us examine that possibility. They obviously feel that the African Commonwealth is of great importance. Indeed, when there was an exchange in the House at the time of the statement on the embargo of arms to South Africa, the Prime Minister, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who had said that this announcement would have far-reaching implications, replied:
  "Not to have made it"—
  that is, the announcement—
  "would have had far-reaching implications for our relationships with and membership of the United Nations and for our relations with a large number of Commonwealth countries in Africa and elsewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1966; Vol. 702, c. 201.]
  In accordance with this general policy we are now offering Tanzania £7 million, in spite of the fact that they have cut off diplomatic relations with us, and £14 million to Zambia, who only last year suggested that we should be expelled from the Commonwealth.
  I suggest that the Government are suffering from the disease of apartheid in reverse. They have already annoyed Canada, Australia and New Zealand because of their implementation of some of the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in respect of citizens of those countries. The Government are conducting an economic war in Rhodesia and are about to create a situation in Malta which will create an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. These are all white countries of the Commonwealth.
  Mr. John Binns: Is the hon. Member trying to argue that our Agreement with South Africa is sacrosanct and yet our agreements with the rest of the world, through the United Nations, are cant and hypocrisy?
  Mr. Wall: I am arguing that the Government's policy is cant and hypocrisy. An excellent example is afforded by the Buccaneer deal, which they allowed to go through because they realised the industrial implications. I am glad they did, because it helped my constituency. But their whole policy is based on cant and hypocrisy and there may be more sinister reasons behind this.
  My third suggested reason for the action of the Government is that they are preparing to participate in a United Nations blockade of the whole of Southern Africa. In the debate on mandatory sanctions on Monday it was clear that the Government have got themselves into an impossible position. They will either have to veto a United Nations resolution on mandatory sanctions and lose the support of many of the Commonwealth countries or agree with it. It would be very embarrassing for them to participate in a United Nations blockade and to have a British naval officer and his staff sitting in Cape Town.
  The House may think that this is an exaggerated picture, but it is clear, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) has pointed out, that they are already blockading Beira. The answer was given in the House the other day to the effect that this blockade is to prevent oil tankers going into Beira. I cannot see why, because we know that Rhodesia is receiving oil by every route apart from Beira. We know, for example, that oil is passing through the Commonwealth territory of Botswana. I heard the other day that British naval forces off Beira had stopped an Italian passenger vessel and boarded it. That is not an oil blockade. This rumour is current in South Africa and has done a great deal to undermine British prestige in that part of the world. I hope it can be denied.
  If the British Government contemplate assisting the United Nations in a blockade of Southern Africa it means blockading a coastline of 4,000 miles from the Congo River on the west right round the Cape of Good Hope to the river Ruvuma, in Tanzania. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has pointed out that this operation would need at least 50 warships—which we have
  1616
  not got—and 300 aircraft, and it would fail and would need to be backed by a military force of 93,000 which would suffer between 7,000 and 8,000 casualties on the first day of an amphibious assault.
  I know that the Government would not lightly enter into this form of blockade on their own, and one wonders what American policy is in this respect. The policy of the American State Department seems to switch from day to day. After the recent extraordinary occurrence in Table Bay, concerning the aircraft carrier "Franklin D. Roosevelt", one wonders whether the State Department has any clear policy. What is clear is that the policy adopted by the present British Government is destroying the friendly relations between the British and South African navies, which has been built up over many years.
  The last possible alternative behind the Government's move to renegotiate the Simonstown Agreement is that it is the precursor of a complete withdrawal of our Armed Forces from east of Suez. This would be received with delight by certain hon. and right hon. Members opposite. I admit that there is a case for a gradual withdrawal from Aden and perhaps Singapore in due course, but the worst possible way to proceed is that which the Government have adopted in, for example, Aden. I suggest that it is essential for us to retain maritime bases in the Southern Hemisphere and that these should be in areas backed by an industrial complex, from which our amphibious maritime air forces could operate. We could then secure control of Indian Ocean communications at minimum cost. From this point of view the Simonstown Agreement is of immense importance to us. I hope that a similar agreement will be brought about with the Australian Government, so that our British naval/air forces can be based, say, on Fremantle.
  If we do not do this it means abandoning the Indian Ocean and abandoning our responsibiliies to the Commonwealth, particularly to Australia. This may, of course, be the price that the Government are prepared to pay for their new policy in respect of entry into Europe.
  We in this country do not like the policies of the U.S.S.R. and China—their

  1617
  external as well as their internal policies—but we encourage trade with them. We trade with North Vietnam and Cuba, despite the annoyance that that might cause to some of our allies and, in particular, to the United States. That being so, why do we refuse to allow arms to be supplied for the external defence of South Africa, a country which is sited in such a vitally strategic area?
  The refusal to supply arms to South Africa will lose Britain trade; that is trade with our third best customer. The trend to this effect is clear from the 1966 figures. Is this policy a preparation for the use of force against Rhodesia or for mandatory sanctions against South Africa? I fear that such a policy would lead to economic war and would cost us £1 million a day, and might possibly lead to a physical war which would split this nation from top to bottom. I therefore beg the Government to maintain this vitally important Agreement, not only in its letter but, more important, in the spirit in which it was negotiated—a defence Agreement between two nations which share common defence problems.
  12.51 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy (Mr. Maurice Foley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for introducing this subject and for the kind remarks he made in connection with my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as part of Ministry of Defence. We are aware of his loyal service in the Royal Marines. On a personal note, I might mention that he and I, albeit some years ago, were closely involved in visiting different parts of Africa and looking at the problems there.
  I cannot help but feel that in the last six years we have drifted somewhat apart in terms of our views on this subject—and whereas the hon. Gentleman now talks about apartheid in reverse in relation to our attitude, I recall some speeches which he made, but not in the House, in which he movingly spoke of the immorality of apartheid. I wonder whether from time to time in recent years—when one recalls some of the things he has said about Rhodesia, the break-up of the Federation and so on—he has been endeavouring to give a measure of respec-
  1618
  tability to something which in conscience he abhors.
  The debate has ranged wide afield and at times I have thought it to be a dress rehearsal for the defence debate which we will be having shortly. Perhaps the hon. Member for Haltemprice wants more that one bite at the cherry. Anyone listening to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Simonstown and the South Atlantic might imagine that our discussions had broken down in absolute failure. The plain fact is—and the hon Member knows this—that our discussions with the South African Government were conducted in the most amicable atmosphere. A conclusion was reached and we reached agreement. This has been announced in South Africa and was announced in reply to a Question tabled by the hon. Gentleman on Friday of last week.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Would the hon. Gentleman say when the details will be made known? The withdrawal of the C.-in-C. was announced to the House in an aside by the Secretary of State following a supplementary question, but we still do not know the terms of the new agreement.
  Mr. Foley: The hon. Gentleman has a Question down on this topic. It may be convenient if I give him the answer now. At present the Royal Navy maintains a Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic, in South Africa with a staff of more than 100 naval and civilian personnel. The Defence Review, 1966, concluded that we must reduce naval commitments in a number of parts of the world. This is the reason, and the sole reason, why we have come to conclusions in relation to Simonstown. We considered it right and proper that we should consult the South African Government about those proposals and no change in the Simonstown Agreement was or is envisaged.
  Preliminary consultation began last year and in January of this year the Vice-Chief of Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral Sir John Bush, went to Cape Town and there the British team, led by Her Majesty's Ambassador to South Africa, had these talks, which took place between 25th and 27th January. These discussions were concluded successfully, with agreement on the recommendations to be put to the two Governments.

  1619
  One important change proposed as a result of decisions arising from the Defence Review and following the Simonstown talks is a change in the command structure. That part of the present South Atlantic and South American Command in which South Africa lies will become the responsibility of the C.-in-C. Home Fleet, under whose command we will appoint a senior British naval officer of the rank of Commodore who will act as C.-in-C. Home Fleet's representative in South Africa and will continue the existing liaison with the South African Navy.
  The senior British naval officer, who will also be the naval attaché, will have a small staff and will be located in Cape Town. As part of this arrangement, the proposal is that the Chief of the South African Navy will take greater responsibility for the South African area in times of war. The maintenance of the Simonstown Agreement means that the Royal Navy will have continued use of the facilities in South Africa hitherto enjoyed. These include use of the facilities at Simonstown Dockyard and the use of communications provided by Cape Naval Radio.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the joint training arrangements with the South African Navy continue?
  Mr. Foley: There is no question of disturbing what already exists, and joint training does take place. In this connection, I thought, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman intervened in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice in connection with the Simonstown Agreement, that he was being a little unfair in his selective quotation. I, too, nave that quotation and have read it. I think that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads it again he will see that Article 3 states:
  "The British Admiralty agree to act as agents … in this matter".
  The phrase "in this matter" refers to decisions in Article 2 relating to equip-
  1620
  ment to be supplied during the period 1955–63. He must be careful not to assume something which is not in the Agreement. The question of ammunition was raised, although this and other questions connected with it have already been answered in Parliament. The hon. Member for Haltemprice will be aware that any matters relating to equipment for the South African Armed Forces come to Ministers here, must be studied by them and examined in the light of our adherence to the United Nations Resolution relating to the embargo; and any decisions are then taken. I cannot answer now the question of spare parts for the Buccaneer, I cannot answer that now, but I will look into the matter. To answer question asked about Beira and the blockade of this area, while my geography may be somewhat slight, I suggest that it is not in the South Atlantic. It is, however, important in this context and, therefore, must be borne in mind.
  I am not aware of the rumour to which the hon. Member for Haltemprice referred. I will make inquiries and let him know the position. I hope that he will be one of the first to squash it if it is found that the rumour is unfounded. He will be aware that Questions have been tabled relating to the Beira Patrol. He will also be aware that the whole of the operation of the Beira Patrol does not come from Simonstown. This is Middle East Command, and it was arranged in this way for clear reasons in terms of operational ability and so on. Regarding Simonstown generally, this Agreement has been reached between the two Governments and, when one thinks of the difficulties involved in our military redeployment in other parts of the world, I am happy to inform the House that, in this case, our difficulties have been fully understood and accepted; and on this basis I believe that we can proceed.
  The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order.
  Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRIGHTON MARINA BILL (By Order)
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (No. 2) BILL(By Order)
  Read a Second time and committed.
  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (CANVEY ISLAND APPROACHES, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
      PORT OF LONDON BILL (By Order)
      Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Eric Fletcher): I beg to move,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the following Schedule be made:—
  Schedule
  Standing Order 156A, line 10, after 'of', insert 'Rate Support Grant'.
  Standing Order 15613—
  Line 2, after 'to', insert 'Rate Support Grant'.
  Line 15, after 'to ', insert 'Rate Support Grant'.
  Standing Order 191, line 8, after 'of' insert 'Rate Support Grant'.
  These Amendments are consequential on the passing by Parliament of the Local Government Acts last December.
  Question put and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BOARD OF TRADE

    Bankruptcies
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the number of bankruptcies recorded in the quarter ended 31st December, 1966, and in the year ended the same date; and how these numbers compare with those for the quarter and year ended 31st December, 1965.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): The number of receiving orders and administration orders in bankruptcy for the last quarters of 1965 and 1966 were 953 and 1,014 respectively; and for the years 1965 and 1966, 3,556 and 3,862 respectively.
    Mr. Osborn: Does not this show an upward trend? Does this mark the successful outcome of Government policy?
    Mr. Darling: No, I am afraid the hon. Member has got the facts wrong. The present trend is not out of keeping with recent years. In fact, last year's numbers were a little below the average for the last five years, and of course well below the average for 1962–63 when the hon. Member was silent about bankruptcies.

    Retail Sales
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value and volume of retail sales during November and December, including Christmas, 1966, and during January, including the January sales, 1967, respectively; and how these figures compare with those for November and December. 1965, and January. 1966.
    Mr. Darling: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Figures for January, 1967, are not yet available.
    Mr. Osborn: Can the Government state whether these figures amount to an improvement or a decline on previous years? Would the Minister of State like to comment on them?
    Mr. Darling: Compared with November and December, 1965, the same two months in 1966 were in value slightly up. The trend for this year shows that retail trade was rising in the early part

    INDEX NUMBERS OF RETAIL SALES PER WEEK—ALL KINDS OF BUSINESS

    Value (current prices)

    Volume (1961 prices)

    Index (1961=100)

    Change on year earlier

    Index (1961=100)

    Change on year earlier

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    November, 1966

    …

    …

    132

    +2

    115

    -1

    December, 1966

    …

    …

    163

    +3

    141

    No change

    Periods covered are:—

    November, 1965

    4 weeks

    31st October-27th November

    December, 1965

    5 weeks

    28th November-1st January

    November, 1966

    4 weeks

    30th October-26th November

    December, 1966

    5 weeks

    27th November-31st December

    Animals and Birds (Import by Air)
    Dame Joan Vickersasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take action to see that animals and birds are not imported by air except under licence.
    Mr. Darling: This is an international problem. It is being examined in a study group set up by the International Air Transport Association with a view to their introducing comprehensive regulations.
    Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the Minister of State for that Answer. Can he give any idea when action will be taken? A great many of these animals and birds arrive either dead or injured in this country. This has been going on for some years and action should be taken quickly.
    Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Lady's concern and I hope that the study group can come forward quickly with regulations which our airlines and the airlines of other countries can operate.

    European Economic Community (British Exports)
    Mr. Winnickasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans are in hand to deal with the difficulties of British exports to the member countries of the European Economic Community when internal tariff duties between those countries are completely abolished.
    Mr. Darling: We shall continue to direct our economic policies towards increasing the competitive power of British industry and to offer a wide range of
    1624
    of 1966. It turned downwards, as one would expect, after the July measures and is now appearing to level off.
    Following are the figures:
    Government aids to the promotion of exports. Meanwhile we aim to achieve through the Kennedy Round a general reduction in tariffs affecting our exports.
    Mr. Winnick: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it would be rather useful at this stage to work on the basis that it is possible that we shall not enter the Common Market, and to recognise the various difficulties which this policy will entail?
    Mr. Darling: Yes. That is one reason why we are putting a great deal of effort into the Kennedy Round, which is desirable whatever happens in possible negotiations about the Common Market. But my hon. Friend should not be too pessimistic, for we have more than doubled our exports to the E.E.C. since 1958.

    Portuguese Textiles (Imports)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Portuguese Government about the increase in the import of Portuguese textiles into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I have discussed this matter with the Portuguese authorities and I know that they appreciate my concern that the restrictions which have been imposed on imports of cotton textiles from other low-cost countries should not result in a diversion of trade to Portugal.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Has the President of the Board of Trade come across the fairly well-founded suggestion that these Portuguese exporters of textiles to the

    1625
    United Kingdom receive a 20 per cent. premium on all the sterling they earn thereby? If so, is not this a flagrant breach of international trading? Will he not examine that as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Jay: I have not heard that suggestion in that form, but if the hon. Gentleman sends me evidence of it I will look at it.
    Mr. Hale: Can my right hon. Friend say why we have agreed that a tariff preference should be given to the Salazar dictatorship where wages in the textile industry are about equivalent to those in Hong Kong, whose colonial and African policy is consistently hostile to us, and from which the effects are already being observed in the depression in Lancashire?
    Mr. Jay: All these facts, of course, do not affect the fact that Portugal is a member of E.F.T.A. and a co-signatory with us of the Stockholm Treaty, but I have discussed this matter in Lisbon and corresponded since with the Portuguese Trade Minister who is very well aware of our views on it.
    Mr. Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of our best mills in a narrow sector of the industry, completely re-equipped and operating on three shifts, are facing extinction because of these ridiculously low-priced imports?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, but I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish to exaggerate this particular trouble. Actually, imports from Portugal last year were no higher than the average for 1962–64 which has been set as the limit for the imports from countries to which the quota is applied.

    Textile Imports (Quota)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to ensure that imported textiles made from man-made fibres will in future be controlled through the global quota and other quota arrangements.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir; the international arrangements which govern the use of quota restrictions on cotton textiles by importing countries, specifically rule out their extension to other goods.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Why have we agreed to this? Is it not a fact that man-
    1626
    made fibres compete directly with cotton goods, particularly mixtures which can contain up to as much as 49 per cent. of cotton? What sort of protection does the President envisage in that case? He will not do it by the global quota for Lancashire in this regard.
    Mr. Jay: It was the previous Government which agreed to it. I think the hon. Member forgets that where the textile is less than 50 per cent. cotton then, although the quota does not apply, of course there is a tariff of 17½ per cent. and above which is applicable to Commonwealth as well as to non-Commonwealth goods. The tariff applies wherever the quota does not.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Can my right hon. Friend say nothing about the possibility of setting up an imports commission? Why has he said nothing concrete about that recently?
    Mr. Jay: The control of imports Is, of course, firmly in the hands of the Board of Trade and we are administering this global quota which has never been in force before and which gives a guaranteed top limit from Lancashire's point of view on the volume of imports from all these countries.
    Mr. Barber: Is the right hon. Gentleman actually saying that because the arrangements were made by the previous Government he will not consider the representations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke)?
    Mr. Jay: I am glad to do that, but the right hon. Gentleman will agree that most Governments pay some regard to treaties with other countries, even when they have been made by the previous Government.

    Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Tees-side Airports (Regional Development)
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to encourage the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Tees-side airports to work jointly in the interests of regional development; and what grant is available for a joint arrangement by the airports.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): With a view to

    1627
    avoiding uneconomic competition between the airports, a grant of £150,000 was offered on condition that a joint controlling body was formed. Under the guidance of the Northern Economic Planning Council the two groups of authorities are endeavouring to establish such joint control and I hope that their efforts will prove to be successful.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that a very serious situation is developing concerning Tees-side Airport? For a number of years now the condition on this grant has been well known, but unfortunately there has been some misunderstanding either by the Ministry, the Tees-side Airport, or the Newcastle Airport, sufficient not to produce any progress. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that this sad situation as to regional communications will be brought to an end? Will he say that he can make a statement to the House fairly soon?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I am not aware of any misunderstanding about the terms of the grant, but if there is such a misunderstanding and my hon. Friend will let me know about it, I will do my best to dissipate it.

    Film "The Private Right" (Cost)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to public funds of the production of the film "The Private Right".
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I regret that I cannot give details of individual transactions between the National Film Finance Corporation and its customers. There will, of course, be no cost to public funds for this particular film if it is a commercial success and if the loan is repaid in full.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman not cloud the issue, as his right hon. Friend did on the last occasion, by talking about censorship but face the question what value to the public is obtained by financing a film which shows members of Her Majesty's Forces acting in a wholly outrageous manner for which there is no justification in fact?
    Mr. Mallalieu:I have seen this film. It does not do any such thing. The
    1628
    objection, I think, which the right hon. Gentleman is raising is about a torture scene in which an Englishman was present. He is not a soldier, he is not in uniform, and he has not had a haircut for about 10 weeks. He is obviously a civilian.
    Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this film, which I also have seen, clearly states that it is a work of fiction, and that it is a work of exceptional merit, being the only British film chosen at the London Film Festival? Will my hon. Friend agree that it is the Corporation's business to develop films of merit and talent and not to succumb to interference by busybodying meddlers?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that the young director and producer of the film shows exceptional talent and is exactly the sort of man who should be encouraged by the National Film Finance Corporation.

    National Film Finance Corporation (Expenditure)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the President of the Board of Trade how much public money he anticipates will be spent this year by the National Film Finance Corporation; and what steps he is taking to secure that this money is spent in accordance with the public interest.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Corporation expects that its advances during the year ending 31st March, 1967, will amount to approximately £800,000. The purposes for which the loans are made are laid down in the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Acts.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the detachment which the Minister of State showed on the previous Question extend to the production of a film which shows up the evils of State Socialism, or is it only the Armed Forces which can be defamed at the expense of public funds?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I must repeat that the Armed Forces were not defamed in that film, except for the propensity of the actors who were playing soldiers to expose themselves on the skyline occasionally.
    Mr. Boyd-CarpenterLike Ministers.
    Mr. Mallalieu: Generally speaking, we must leave it to the discretion of the National Film Finance Corporation to decide what films it supports.
    Captain Orr: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in allocating its finance, the National Film Finance Corporation takes into account the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the industry by, for example, attaching conditions to any of the loans which it makes?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The Corporation has a general condition that, in its judgment, films for which public money is offered should have a reasonable chance of being a commercial success.

    Motor Cars (United States Safety Regulations)
    Mr. Luardasked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the proposed United States safety regulations for motor cars with regard to a possible violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Darling: Initial vehicle safety standards were announced by the United States Department of Commerce on 31st January and are now being studied by United Kingdom manufacturers and the Government. The provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will certainly be borne in mind.
    Mr. Luard: While many people will feel some satisfaction that these regulations are now being amended, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is likely to be much more difficult for the manufacturers of small motor cars to meet some of these regulations than it is for the manufacturers of larger cars in the United States? This inevitably affects freedom of trade in motor cars. Will the Government undertake to make every representation to see that no discrimination of this kind is allowed?
    Mr. Darling: That is one of the factors that, obviously we must take into consideration. I repeat, however, that we have only just received the full text of the standards and we must have a week or two to study the details. I understand that we have to make a reply by the end of this month.

    European Free Trade Association (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Luardasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in securing the removal of non-tariff barriers to the trade in motor cars within the European Free Trade Association.
    Mr. Jay: The main problem is not non-tariff barriers, but the failure of certain E.F.T.A. countries to give cars the tariff advantages enjoyed by E.F.T.A. industrial goods generally. I shall continue to pursue this question vigorously, and I am happy to say that the Finnish Government have now announced their intention of reducing the tariff on E.F.T.A. cars from 14 per cent. to 7 per cent.
    Mr. Luard: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the exceptions that are made in the case of motor cars make nonsense of the whole concept of a Free Trade Area and that it is important in the interests of one of our most vital export industries to ensure that the same regulations are applied to motor cars as to other commodities?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir, I entirely agree. I would like to thank the Finnish Government here and now for what they have done. We still hope that they will do more. We are continuing the discussions with the Norwegian Government and I am glad to say that the Swedish Government share our view.

    Imports and Exports (Containers)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentages of imports and exports, respectively, are now packed in containers.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: This information is not at present available but the proportion is believed still to be very small.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is it not likely that this percentage will increase enormously? Is the Minister in touch with other Departments to ensure that adequate preparations are made?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I hope and believe that the percentage will increase largely. We are in touch with other Departments. From this year onwards, we are getting

    1631
    all the information for which the hon. Member is asking. This will, of course, apply to subsequent years also.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that Liverpool had the export record last year and that in the next few years new quayside facilities will be introduced purely for this type of container service? May I ask my hon. Friend to speak to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and point out that if we do not get a motorway in the next year or two, the port facilities will grind to a halt rather than increase?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I am aware of the point made by my hon. Friend in the first part of his supplementary question. The second part is another question, but I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir J. Eden: Will the Minister tackle this whole question with much greater urgency than he appears to be doing? Does he recognise the great importance of developing this container service? Will he ensure that there is proper co-ordination between the other Departments of Government to make sure that there are satisfactory road and rail links with the developing ports?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I recognise that it is important and I will do that.

    Tariffs and Import Regulations (Exporters' Inquiries)
    Mr. Macdonaldasked the President of the Board of Trade within what period his Department expects to give a reply to an inquiry from a potential exporter about tariffs and import regulations in a West European country.
    Mr. Jay: Of 14,000 tariff inquiries dealt with last month, half were answered at once by telephone. Most written replies go out in three or four days. But where inquiry has to be made in the foreign country, there can be appreciable delay.
    Mr. Macdonald: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask what steps he has taken or what machinery he has instituted to satisfy himself that the standards for written replies to which he has just referred are maintained?
    Mr. Jay: We are continually reviewing this position, but 7,000 replies virtually instantly out of 14,000 is a quite good record. I will certainly follow up what my hon. Friend has said.

    Insurance Premiums (Jewellers and Silversmiths)
    Sir H. Lucas-Toothasked the President of the Board of Trade what increase there has been in the rates charged by insurance companies against loss of stock by jewellers and silversmiths by burglary compared with similar rates charged one and 10 years ago. respectively.
    Mr. Darling: This information is not available to me. I understand that the rates depend on the nature of the risk involved and vary from area to area.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the Minister aware that there has certainly been a very substantial increase? While it may be justified because of the growth of organised crime, does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this causes hardship to jewellers when other prices are fixed? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to take special precautions with a view to keeping down these rates?
    Mr. Darling: The second part of that supplementary question goes beyond what the Question asks. If, however, the hon. Member can let me have any information on this score, we will certainly look into it.

    Wool Exports
    Mr. George Craddockasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give details of the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to help wool exporters;
    (2) if he is aware that wool exports have fallen by 30 per cent.; and what steps he is contemplating to deal with this matter.
    Mr. Jay: A special grant has been made to assist the industry's sales promotion in the United States. Representations have been made to foreign Governments on matters of concern to wool manufacturers. The industry has also taken advantage of the full range of

    1633
    general export services provided by the Government.
    Mr. Craddock: I appreciate the difficulties, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the reduction in the wool trade from the heavy wool districts throughout the world has dropped by 30 per cent. of £160 million annually? This is a serious matter. Will he take further steps to meet the interests involved to see what can be done to help the trade?
    Mr. Jay: The figure of reduction quoted by my hon. Friend is over a long period of years, and the industry is still exporting at the rate of over £70 million annually. But I shall be extremely glad to do anything further we can to help.

    Advance Factory (Stranraer)
    Mr. Brewisasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce a tenant for the new advance factory at Stranraer.
    Mr. Jay: The Stranraer advance factory is now complete, and every effort is being made to find a suitable tenant.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this matter is being treated with sufficient urgency, in view of the high rate of unemployment?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. We cannot guarantee to find a tenant by any fixed date, but over the whole of this programme there are extremely few factories left vacant for very long.

    Wigtownshire (Advance Factory)
    Mr. Brewisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now build an advance factory in the Machars of Wigtownshire.
    Mr. Jay: I am aware of the employment problem in the Machars, and I am willing to encourage any industrialist wishing to establish a suitable project there. I have no plans to build an advance factory there at the moment.
    Mr. Brewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account that, since his Government came into power with promises of regional development, the unemployment rate in the area has risen from 4 to 10 per cent.? Will he do something for the area other than appointing just another committee?
    Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman is quoting the winter figure which, naturally, is higher than the average for the year. But I agree that it is high and everything possible must be done.

    Investment Grant
    Mr. Costainasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the confusion which exists in regard to determining the date on which expenditure is incurred for the purpose of claiming investment grant and that his Department's interpretation in paragraph 124 of its booklet is inconsistent with Section 13(4) of the Industrial Development Act, 1966; and whether he will clarify the situation.
    Mr. Jay: The formula in paragraph 124 of the booklet, which was devised in consultation with the accountancy profession, explains the basis on which, in normal circumstances, claims that expenditure has been incurred will be accepted for grant purposes. Since the booklet was issued a temporary higher rate of grant has been introduced for expenditure incurred during 1967 and 1968. Expenditure will be eligible for grant at this higher rate only if the sums in question become payable during these two years regardless of when they are actually paid.
    Mr. Costain: Is there not confusion over this matter, and does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, since this Question was put down, some clarification has been made? Will he do his best to publicise the facts?
    Mr. Jay: There is some complexity, but I do not agree that there had been any confusion, at least not in our booklet. However, we are very glad by personal explanation at the offices as well as by the pamphlet to try to make these complicated details clear.
    Mr. Costainasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the lack of specific guidance as to which types of machinery and plant qualify for investment grants is inhibiting industrial investment; whether he is aware that the booklet recently published by his Department has done little to clarify the position; and what steps he proposes to take to make the grants system provide an incentive to invest.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The booklet has been generally recognised as helpful, and for the great bulk of investment it is quite clear whether it is eligible or not. In cases of doubt, the Investment Grants Offices are ready to answer inquiries.
    Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that this investment grant is not essentially mandatory puts a restriction on new investment? Will he make the position clearer so that people know that they are entitled to it not just as a prerogative?
    Mr. Jay: That is another question, but I have repeatedly made clear that, where an item of plant comes within the categories laid down, the grant is, of course, payable.
    Mr. Barnett: Will my right hon. Friend consider a fresh inquiry into the value of any incentive grant? Does he agree that, generally, the economic mood of the country plays by far the greatest part in the making of investment decisions, and will he, therefore, do all he can to encourage his Cabinet colleagues to give higher priority to growth in the economy?
    Mr. Jay: I fully agree that there are other factors at work, but there have been so many inquiries into this subject in the last two years that I think it best to see how the present system works before taking any further decisions.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the last few words of the Question ask him to provide an incentive to invest? Does not he realise that the greatest incentive of all is not the rate of cash grant but the quick payment of it, and the delay under the present system of 18 to 21 months for payment is far too long?
    Mr. Jay: Certainly, but, as I have repeatedly said, we aim to reduce the period to something like six months as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the anomalies in the system which create so much trouble? Does he realise that, although the Act provided for grant for computers, his Department has indicated that it will refuse a grant for the peripheral equipment to a firm which wants
    1636
    to install it in order to use a centralised computer? Is not this utterly ludicrous, and will he look at the matter again?
    Mr. Jay: The general principle throughout the great range of equipment is perfectly clear. I agree that, as always in these cases, there are marginal difficulties which are really better discussed at the Investment Grants Offices than across the Floor of the House.

    Cigarettes (Pricing and Advertising Policies)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the interest of Her Majesty's Government as a matter of public policy in the volume and extent of cigarette smoking, whether he will make a statement concerning pricing and advertising policies for cigarettes.
    Mr. Jay: The Government's prices and incomes policy applies to cigarettes as to other goods. As to cigarette advertising, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 6th February.—[Vol. 740, c. 1102.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: Has the right hon. Gentleman perceived that it has taken four years—from 1964 to 1968, the estimated date—to bring the cigarette and tobacco case before the Restrictive Practices Court? Having regard to all the public controversy about price cutting on cigarettes and tobacco, cannot the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to have this massively important matter heard by the court at a much earlier date than the middle of next year?
    Mr. Jay: When the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill was introduced, as the hon. Gentleman may remember, I said that the whole process would take much too long. Experience has borne that out.
    Sir G. Nabarro: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?
    Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to interfere with the legal processes instituted by his Government before Parliament has altered the law, I cannot do it.

    Exports
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade what increase, percentage, respectively, in volume and value of exports took place in 1966 over 1965; and, having regard to revision of the National Plan due to unattainable rates of growth in the national economy, what export performance he anticipates in 1967.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the President of the Board of Trade what increase in the volume and value of exports has taken place in 1966 compared with 1965 and 1964; and what level he expects for 1967.
    Mr. Jay: In 1966 exports were 3½ per cent. higher in volume and 6½ per cent. higher in value than in 1965. Between 1964 and 1966 the increases were 8½ per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively. It is not the practice to give forward estimates of exports.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministerial colleagues are now engaged on the preparation of a second edition of the National Plan? [An HON. MEMBER: "God help us all."] Yes, God help us all. How can that second edition be prepared if the President of the Board of Trade, responsible for exports, is not prepared to give a reliable assessment of what performance should be during 1967?
    Mr. Jay: Exports are now running 20 per cent. higher than in the last few months of the previous Administration. I prefer performance to forecasts.
    Mrs. Ren½e Short: Will my right hon. Friend take it that we on this side compliment both him and his Department on the rise in the export trade experienced since the party opposite were in power, particularly as the increases are evident in the direction of the Common Market, E.F.T.A. and the countries of Eastern Europe? Will he repudiate the efforts of certain members of the party opposite to persuade manufacturers not to press forward with their export programmes?
    Mr. Jay: I think that compliments to the Government are almost out of order
    1638
    at Question Time, but our various efforts may have had something to do with this success.
    Mr. Barber: When he is making his forecast for exports this year, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) asked, will the President of the Board of Trade bear in mind that industrial investment is falling, that profits are down, and that industrial production is now back to the same level as in October, 1964? Does not he agree that the Government's economic policy is an abject failure?
    Mr. Jay: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is even more out of order than I should be if I answered that.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of exports in 1966 were from nationalised industries and from the private sector of industry, respectively.
    Mr. Jay: Direct exports of goods and services by the nationalised industries are estimated to account for about 3 per cent. of all exports of goods and services. In addition, the nationalised industries contribute to the exports of other industries.
    Mr. Mills: Do the figures not clearly show that from the balance of payments point of view further expansion of nationalisation would be rather an expensive luxury?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The figures show what we all know, that Parliament decided to nationalise the public utilities rather than the manufacturing industries. If we had no electricity, we should not have many exports of any kind.
    Mr. Barber: Since the Minister is making a distinction between public utilities and manufacturing industries, and since he has hitherto expressed the view that the manufacturing industries are not a suitable subject for nationalisation, does he not think that the nationalisation of steel will not make a contribution to our exports?
    Mr. Jay: Unlike the party opposite, we never have a doctrinaire view of these things.

    International Airport (Kent Coast)
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has been giving to the recent proposals by a member of a firm of consulting engineers in London that a major international airport for London be built on land that could be reclaimed off the Kent coast on the Goodwin Sands; and what conclusions he has come to.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Because of the cost and comparative inaccessibility, I am not convinced that such a site would be suitable for a London airport within the foreseeable future. Timing certainly precludes it as the site of the third London airport.
    Mr. Boston: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his investigations, but will he agree that the great advantage of this site would be that it would save a lot of people from noise? Further, will he accept that I am assured that it is technically feasible, and will he agree to his Department's having further discussions about some of the technical points involved?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I would certainly agree to a meeting with officials about technical points, but we must bear in mind that, although a site on this area would be helpful about noise it would be most unhelpful about cost.
    Mr. Onslow: Does the Minister appreciate that it is extremely urgent to announce a decision about the third London Airport? When does he intend to do so?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir, I do. As soon as possible.

    Investment Grant (Dual-Function Vehicles)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to the eligibility for investment grants of dual-function vehicles used partly as plant for the manufacture of ready-mixed concrete; and if he will receive a deputation from the British Ready Mixed Concrete Association.
    Mr. Darling: These vehicles are constructed for the transport of ready-mixed
    1640
    concrete. They are not, therefore, eligible for investment grants under the Industrial Development Act. I am willing to receive a deputation.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is the Minister aware that that willingness will be very well received, and will he be prepared to receive the deputation in the very near future, as the industry is suffering greatly in the meantime?
    Mr. Darling: I shall do so as soon as the deputation wishes to see me.

    Mortgages
    Mr. Iremongerasked the President of the Board of Trade what effect the difficulty in obtaining mortgages is having on the mobility of labour and on decisions of firms to move to development areas.
    Mr. Darling: I have no evidence that a difficulty in obtaining mortgages is having an adverse effect on decisions to move to development areas.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, none the less, that all the talk about shake-out and redeployment as a result of the freeze and the squeeze has come to nothing? Could he make a statement about the general effect of his Government's policies on the mobility of labour?
    Mr. Darling: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first observation. He should bear in mind that the purpose of giving grants, loans and assistance to firms going to development areas is to take work to the workers who are unemployed there. The only difficulty about accommodation is for key workers, and in many parts of the development areas local authorities are extremely helpful in providing that kind of accommodation.
    Mr. Lipton: Are not mortgages generally now much more easily obtainable than for a long time past? Why is it that hon. Members opposite always grumble about any progress that is made?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Because it is negligible; that is why.

    Dry Cleaners (Prices)
    Sir H. Lucas-Toothasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average period of delay in giving

    1641
    approval to applications made to him by dry cleaners for permission to increase their prices; and whether he is aware that delays in his Department are causing serious hardship.
    Mr. Darling: There has been an average of 10 weeks between application and decision in these early cases. This time will be much reduced in future. I am not aware of any cases of serious hardship.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: While the case which prompted the question was, surprisingly, dealt with on the day after I put the Question down, is the Minister aware that there is reason to suppose that there has been a good deal of buck-passing between his Department and the Department of Economic Affairs in this connection? Will he see that that sort of thing does not happen and that decisions are given more promptly in future?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. I have given the assurance that decisions will be reached more quickly in the future.

    British Airports (Grooved Runways)
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the application of grooved runways to British ariports.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Grooved runways are a feature of Manchester and Leeds-Bradford airports. Grooving is one of several methods of reducing the risk of aircraft skidding or aquaplaning on wet runways.
    Mr. Marten: Could the Minister say when they will be grooved at the British Airports Authority airports?
    Mr. Mallalieu: That method is only one of several for providing extra safety. It is the most expensive. What method is employed must depend on local conditions.

    Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh (Radar)
    Mr. Stodartasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh, to be equipped with surveillance radar.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I am considering both this and the possibility of
    1642
    achieving improvements by other more economic means.
    Mr. Stodart: Could the hon. Gentleman say what the cost of that improvement would be? Could he also estimate the present cost to aircraft which have to go flying around, unable to get down, because of lack of radar at Turnhouse? Is not Turnhouse the only major airport in Britain which lacks surveillance radar?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The cost would be about £150,000. Delays there are much more due to cross winds than lack of that equipment.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend tell us what progress he is making in getting Edinburgh Corporation to take over Turnhouse Airport and put in all the improvements that Edinburgh Members of Parliament want?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I hope to meet the Lord Provost very shortly.

    Air Transport Licensing Board
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the Air Transport Licensing Board is discharging its obligations under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. I have no doubt that the Board carries out its obligations under the Act scrupulously and conscientiously.
    Mr. Onslow: Can the Minister tell the House what statutory duty the Board had last year to take into account the criteria for price behaviour set out in the White Paper on prices and incomes policy in considering domestic fare increase applications? Is he aware that this year probably no domestic carrier is making a profit on internal routes? How, in those conditions, can the Board be said to be carrying out its obligations?
    Mr. Jay: The Board is compelled to act according to the legislation that set it up. In so far as it can do that, taking into account the Government's prices and incomes policy at the same time, I have no doubt that it is doing so.
    Mr. Marten: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question put by my hon. Friend? Under what authority

    1643
    did the Air Transport Licensing Board have to consider the Government's prices and incomes policy? It was not in its Statute to do so.
    Mr. Jay: So far as that conflicted with the Statute—if it did—the Board would clearly not be bound to do so. But if there was no conflict there is no reason why it should not take account of the Government's policy.

    Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will give his latest estimate of the level of investment in the chemical industry in 1967 compared with 1966;
    (2) whether he will give his latest estimate of the level of investment in the textile industry in 1967 compared with 1966.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he will make a statement on his Department's recent survey on investment in manufacturing industry showing a drop of 10 per cent. during 1967; and if he will give the reasons for revising his earlier forecast which showed a drop of 7 to 8 per cent.
    Mr. Alisonasked the President of the Board of Trade what new factors have led to a downward revision of his Department's forecast of the level of manufacturing investment in 1967.
    Mr. Jay: The report of the latest survey, published in the Board of Trade Journal of 27th January, indicates the changes expected between 1966 and 1967 for different industry groups and explains why the total fall is sharper than that estimated in the previous survey. Manufacturers' investment in 1966 will probably be higher than estimated in the August-September survey, so that, despite the bigger fall forecast in the November-December survey, the level of investment in 1967 is likely to be substantially the same as estimated in the August-September survey.
    Mr. Jenkin: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the figures published in the statement in the Board of Trade Journal with his futile and over-optimistic statement in Glasgow on 3rd January
    1644
    that private investment would be no lower in 1967 than in 1966?
    Mr. Jay: I made no such statement, or anything like it. All I said was that when the next investment grants had been taken into account it was possible that private investment would flatten out in 1967. It is possible, and I repeat it now.
    Mr. Mills: Does not the right hon. Gentleman always get his figures wrong, and is it not a further example of the mess the Government get themselves into by wishful thinking with statistics? Would he not agree that the prime reason he has gone wrong on this calculation is that he greatly over-estimated the value of his investment grant scheme?
    Mr. Jay: It is the hon. Member who has the figures wrong. What he does not understand is that the 10 per cent. reduction is a reduction from a figure we now know to be higher than when it was forecast as 7 or 8 per cent. Therefore, the actual level of investment in 1967, so far as the forecasts are accurate, will be as previously foreseen.
    Mr. Alison: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the figures represent a substantially lower figure of investment for the service and distribution industries compared with the 1962 cycle? How can he pretend that this can be isolated from manufacturing industry in the long run? Does he realise that he has deliberately engineered this?
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to make the picture look worse than it is, because that is merely a further deterrent to investment, which is most undesirable.
    Mr. Barnett: Is it not ridiculous to encourage investment in the textile industry while at the same time allowing low-cost imports, from Portugal in particular? Will my right hon. Friend therefore give serious consideration to restricting imports from Portugal?
    Mr. Jay: I have already answered that Question, but clearly some sections of the textile industry are expanding, notably those in man-made fibres, and investment is highly desirable.

    Industrial Development Certificates (Okehampton)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the President of the Board of Trade how many firms have applied for and been granted and then taken up industrial development certificates in the Okehampton area of Devon during the year 1966.
    Mr. Darling: There were three applications. Two were approved, of which one, so far as we know at the moment, will go ahead.
    Mr. Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, unless this area is made a development area, it is no use granting industrial development certificates, as firms cannot afford not to go into an area which is a development area? Unless something is done, the Okehampton area will continue to have unemployment and depopulation.
    Mr. Darling: I cannot agree with the the hon. Gentleman's argument. I have discussed this with him. We will certainly give sympathetic consideration to all applications for industrial development certificates suitable for development in that area.

    Industry (Okehampton)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has made to retain existing industry in the Okehampton area of Devon.
    Mr. Darling: None, Sir. It is not for the Board of Trade to make such plans, but naturally I hope that existing industry in Okehampton will prosper.
    Mr. Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is grave danger of existing firms in the area moving away as they wish to expand but find that it is not profitable to do so in an area which is not a development area? Will he see what he can do to make this a development area, otherwise the problems will be very serious in the years ahead?
    Mr. Darling: I have no evidence that existing firms are going to move out of the area, but if the hon. Gentleman has any I would like to discuss it with him.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the main reasons for the relatively high unemployment rate in the South-West is the deplorable communication? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend that these should have top priority if the Government mean business in their regional development policy?
    Mr. Darling: I will see that the hon. Gentleman's observations are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

    Third London Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the need for a third London Airport; what consideration he has given to the Report on its location; and when it is proposed to commence building operations.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Yes, Sir. The Report of the Stansted public inquiry has been carefully studied and we hope to announce the Government's decision soon. Construction will be a matter for the British Airports Authority but cannot, of course, begin until a decision on the site has been taken.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Daily Express announced the Government's decision on Thursday of last week? In view of the fact that he has told us that the decision is yet to be announced, is the decision which was publicly announced last week the one that the Government propose to announce—that Stansted will be the third London Airport?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I saw the story in the Daily Express but what I see in the Daily Express I find not always to be accurate. No decision has yet been taken.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that the House is told as soon as the decision is made? How soon is "soon"—next week or next month?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, "Yes", and the answer to the second part is, "Shortly".
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that this matter has been outstanding far too long,

    1647
    bearing in mind the inefficiency and hopelessness of London Airport, which is a disgrace to Britain and a lasting monument to Socialism, having been built in the post-war years?
    Mr. Mallalieu: This matter has taken a long time but it is important to get it right.
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of his forecast of an early decision on London's third airport, he has undertaken a detailed study of the practicability of siting this airport on the coast so that aircraft may approach and take off over the sea.
    Mr. Jay: We have studied all the relevant issues.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Minister publish the Report on the third London Airport, particularly the survey of the possibility of having an airport with take-off and landing over the sea, and give this House and the country an opportunity to discuss this before the final decision is made?
    Mr. Jay: We shall publish the Report of the public inquiry on Stanstead, and we shall make a full statement as soon as we have taken a decision.
    Mr. Rankin: As the third London Airport is needed now, will my right hon. Friend not embark on any action which might slow down the creation of the new third airport?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. I think that I can give that assurance.
    Mr. John Hall: What consideration has been given to the suggestion that an airport might be built in the Thames Estuary?
    Mr. Jay: We have reviewed the whole of this problem, including all the alternatives and all the relevant factors, and that is one of the possibilities which we have taken into account.
    Mr. Corfield: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if his preliminary decision tends to come down for an alternative to Stanstead, he will then he obliged to go through all the procedure of another planning inquiry which at the end of the day might well prove that yet another is necessary in order to reach yet
    1648
    another alternative? Is it not time that he consulted his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether a more expeditious procedure can be worked out?
    Mr. Jay: That appears to be inevitable from legislation which, I think, was introduced by the party opposite.
    Mr. Corfield: It was the Labour Party.
    Mr. Jay: In that case, I accept responsibility. The rational thing for the Government to do, quite apart from public inquiries, is to look at all the relevant factors and then make their decision among all the alternatives. That is how we intend to proceed.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that London is alone among the capitals of the world in that 80 per cent. of the aircraft landing at London have to fly over residential areas of the capital? For this reason, will he pay particular attention to the necessity of siting the airport not to the west of the capital, but to the east or south of it?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. It is not quite as simple as that, but we shall not overlook that fact.

    Development Areas (Industry)
    Dr. Dunwoodyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to encourage further the development of industry in those development areas with persistently high rates of unemployment.
    Mr. Darling: Yes, Sir. We have begun a Press advertising campaign this week to bring to the notice of industrialists the opportunities for expansion in the development areas.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply but does not he agree that the response to Government incentives in some of the most difficult development areas has been disappointing and that persistently high unemployment ought to be a very strong argument for creating a greater degree of incentives in these areas?
    Mr. Darling: I think that the present incentives, which are clearly set out in the advertisements to which I referred, will have the response that my hon.

    1649
    Friend and all of us in the House would wish.
    Mr. Corfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the efforts being made by the Board of Trade are being largely nullified in this area in particular by the ludicrous nonsense of the Selective Employment Tax?
    Mr. Darling: That is another question.

    Firms (Allocation of Output)
    Mr. Alisonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish criteria to guide private firms in allocating their output between home and export demand.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir. The circumstances of individual firms differ too widely for this to be useful.
    Mr. Alison: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman substitute exhortation for clear and rational principles?
    Mr. Jay: I do nothing of the sort. We have found that, through the machinery of the British National Export Council, which is in contact with industry on a very wide scale, and individual visits by Board of Trade regional export officers, we get better results, judging by the figures, than we would, I believe, by a practice of the kind suggested.

    Plymouth (Industrial Development)
    Dr. David Owenasked the President of the Board of Trade if Plymouth is a potential growth area; and what positive measures he will take to encourage such growth in view of the competition from the surrounding development area from which Plymouth has been specially excluded.
    Mr. Jay: I see no reason why growth should not take place at Plymouth; I am prepared to consider i.d.c. applications for the area.
    Dr. Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have recently lost a factory of 100 men, which has now been sited in Birmingham, and that lack of development area incentive grants particularly is affecting Plymouth's growth?
    Mr. Jay: We discussed this matter in the House last week. I believe that Ply-
    1650
    mouth has many attractions—as experience has shown—for industry. Wherever we draw a development area boundary, this difficulty is certain to arise.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is no use going on in this vein? No firm will go to an area, however many industrial development certificates are granted, unless it gets a grant.
    Mr. Jay: The experience of the last 20 years shows the hon. Gentleman to be utterly wrong.

    Air Transport Licensing Board
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, in the public interest, issue a general direction to the Air Transport Licensing Board that the Board should arrange to hear all applications for licences and permissions with the least possible delay.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No. Sir. The Board of Trade has no powers to issue such a direction nor do I see the need for one. The Air Transport Licensing Board is well aware of the need to act as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, in at least one recent case, six months elapsed between the filing of the application to the Board and the hearing? Will he either appoint full-time members of the Board or see that it meets more frequently?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I agree on the need for speed. I should like to have details of the case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
    Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that in any case he is not utterly complacent about the way in which the Board handles these matters?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Yes. Sir. The procedure is being kept under continual review.

    Airports (International Services)
    Mr. Mappasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an analysis for September last, or for a typical period, of the proportions of air passengers travelling abroad emanating from the northern and southern halves, respectively, of England and Wales; and how far such data supports the

    1651
    development of airports other than in the London area for international services.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: On the basis of a sample survey carried out at Heathrow and Gatwick airports in the summer of 1965, it is estimated that about 10 per cent. of passengers on international flights through these airports come from, or are bound for, the northern half of England and Wales; and 85 per cent. are travelling to or from the southern half.
    Mr. Mapp: Is my hon. Friend aware that to that information must be added the volume of passengers flying direct to the Continent and elsewhere from the north of England? Will he watch the data very carefully in future, otherwise we may have a third and fourth international airport in the southern part of the country when it should justifiably be placed somewhere north of Birmingham? Are we not in danger of repeating in the 20th century in terms of airports the mistakes made by the railways in the 19th century in placing so many termini in London?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I hope that we shall not repeat the mistakes of the 19th century. I shall watch this matter with particular interest.

    Textile Industry
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what further plans he has to help the textile industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jay: This Government have already introduced major measures of assistance to the industry, notably in the control of cotton textile imports from most countries in the world for a period up to 1970. We have the industry's problems constantly in mind in other international discussions; and we are working with the new Textile Council on a major survey of productivity in all its aspects. I expect the industry, for its part, to take the fullest advantage of the breathing space we have provided to increase its own competitiveness.
    Mr. Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave position in my constituency, where most of the mills
    1652
    have either reduced shift working or have cut back production by closing part of the mill? Is he further aware that both sides of industry agree that this situation is due in the main to the import of cotton and man-made fibre fabrics? Is he also aware that his answers today are far from satisfactory and will give very little pleasure to Lancashire?
    Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend will realise that cotton textile imports in 1966 were rather lower than in 1965. Consumption of textiles in the country has hardly fallen. There has been a de-stocking operation, however, at retail level and all indications are that this should be temporary.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that investment in the textile industry is estimated in 1967 to be 20 per cent. down on 1966? Is he satisfied with that situation?
    Mr. Jay: It is not surprising that the textile industry should not be that in which investment is increasing very rapidly, because some sections are contracting and others are expanding. The essential thing in the textile industry is to concentrate on the expanding sections which have the best prospects.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable scope for exporting textiles particularly to countries of Eastern Europe? Would he encourage British textile manufacturers to appear more often at trade fairs abroad?
    Mr. Jay: I agree with my hon. Friend. To be fair to the British textile manufacturers and distributors, they have been very prominent, particularly on the wool and knitwear side, in a number of British Weeks and exhibitions last year.
    Sir F. Pearson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sheeting sector of the textile industry has been badly hit, particularly by imports coming from Portugal? Can he tell the House what steps he is taking to cope with this very difficult problem?
    Mr. Jay: I am well aware of this. This is precisely the point which I am now discussing with the Portuguese Trade Minister.

    Motor Insurance Companies
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor insurance companies have collapsed in the past 10 years: what were the names of these companies; and how many motorists each left uninsured.
    Mr. Jay: Seven motor insurance companies have failed in the last ten years. I am circulating their names and approximate number of policy-holders in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Has not this situation now become nothing less than a national scandal? Have not much frustration, anxiety, and certainly unnecessary risk, been imposed on motorists and public alike? Will my right hon. Friend therefore seek to protect the good name of reputable insurance companies, and, in addition, give to the general public a new era of confidence by setting up a national insurance motor scheme?
    Mr. Jay: I agree that there is a great deal of concern about this matter. That is why we introduced, in the Companies Bill, very sweeping powers to control the action of such businesses in future. I should like to remind my hon. Friend that those powers operate, in some respects, from the date of the publication of the Bill last autumn. The best way to solve this problem is to get the Bill enacted as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the very serious strength of feeling among the public about the collapse of the insurance companies, give instructions to his Board of Trade inspectors to hasten forward the cases which they have under consideration at the moment?
    Mr. Jay: We shall certainly do all we can to hasten these cases.
    Mr. Bellenger: The action proposed by my right hon. Friend rather smacks of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Does he not already have powers to deal with some of these defaulting companies? Will he bear in mind the remarks made by a representative of the Royal Insurance Company that the Board of Trade was warned for years in the case of one defaulter who has gone
    1654
    on merrily making money at the public expense?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, but I remind my hon. Friend that we have been warned of certain companies in this way, and these companies have recovered and proceeded later on to be perfectly viable and reputable companies. Therefore we have to exercise some caution.
    Following is the information:

    Brandaris Insurance Co. Ltd.

    80,000

    American Military International Insurance Association Ltd.

    42,000

    First General Assurance and Guarantee Corporation Ltd.

    30,000

    Fire, Auto and Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.

    260,000

    Coventry Insurance Co. Ltd.

    3,000

    London and Midland Insurance Co. Ltd.

    50,000

    London and Cheshire Insurance Co. Ltd.

    100,000

    Coastal Waters (Oil Pollution)
    Mr. Currieasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for regular air reconnaissance patrols of the seas surrounding the coasts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the detection of floating oil patches and for the treatment of such areas of oil by means of dispelling chemicals.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The warnings of floating oil patches received from aircraft and ships are generally adequate. Any additional information received from regular air patrols would be very small in relation to the cost of such arrangements. It is open to local authorities to ask for the assistance of the Services in the clearing of offshore pollution when the latter have the necessary resources.
    Mr. Currie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very grave nuisance value to people around the coast of this country caused by oil patches floating inshore, and of the grave damage done to bird life around the British Isles as a result of oil patches? Will he take energetic steps to have this grave nuisance dissipated?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I am aware that this is a serious nuisance. I am also aware, if I may say so, that the Navy deals with this extremely efficiently. But it has to be paid for, and local authorities need persuasion on this.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the problem which this presents applies not only to the sea around Northern Ireland, but also to the seas around Britain, and that oil pollution is ruining many of our beaches? Will he take immediate steps to see that this problem is rectified?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I am quite certain that my hon. and learned Friend will take every possible step to avoid pollution in Aberdeen.

    Doncaster
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the recent large increase in the level of unemployment in Doncaster, he will now consider the introduction of a higher level of investment grant for that area.
    Mr. Jay: No, Sir.
    Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are large differences between national average unemployment levels and those of the development areas which do not find reflection in the level of investment grant? Is not the gap between 25 per cent. and 45 per cent. too great? Will my right hon. Friend consider having an intermediate level.
    Mr. Jay: Although they do not find a reflection in the differential of the investment grant, they do find a reflection in the developing use of the industrial development certificates, and that is the appropriate weapon in this case.
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the President of the Board of Trade what measures he proposes to give effect to the recommendation of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council that the natural advantages for industrial growth of the Doncaster area should be developed, and those developments stimulated.
    Mr. Darling: The recommendations made by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council in its recently published review are being considered.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he give it urgent consideration in the light of the growing unemployment in that area, and
    1656
    pay particular attention to the recommendation of the Economic Planning Council which have due regard for the great potential for development in that area?
    Mr. Darling: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the great growth potential of the area, seeing that my constituency is in it. But we must take into consideration the reports from all the planning councils and put them into a national pattern. That is what we hope to do.
    Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployment level in the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole has doubled in the last 12 months? Can he tell the House whether any of his hon. Friends—and whether he himself—put this prospectus in their election addresses?
    Mr. Darling: I am not aware of the doubling of the unemployment rate throughout the whole of the area. There are pockets here and there where difficulties have occurred, and we are hoping to deal with them.

    Aircraft Noise
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish a White Paper on the control of aircraft noise.
    Mr. Jay: I have taken note of the view, recently put forward by several hon. Members, that there is a need for the publication of more information on the facts and problems associated with the control of aircraft noise. I am still considering whether, and if so how, the information already available needs to be supplemented but it is not yet clear that a White Paper would be appropriate.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Is not the Minister aware of the growing disquiet about the menace of aircraft noise in this country? Does he not think that it is his duty, as the Minister responsible for aircraft noise, to keep the House better informed, and to inform the country of what the Government are doing about it, and what they propose to do in the light of the international conference just held in London?
    Mr. Jay: Yes. I have already made one speech about this in the House. I

    1657
    have discussed it with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at some length. We shall continue to give more information whenever we think it is reasonable to do so.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Further to the discussions to which my right hon. Friend has referred, does he intend to publish anything following them, or make any public statement? Does he intend to issue a White Paper, or will he consider the possibility of a public inquiry on this matter?
    Mr. Jay: I have already said that I am not satisfied that we need a White Paper on every single point, and it may not be the most convenient form in this case.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the factors in this is the safety of aircraft. Although a faster rate of climb may reduce noise, it brings aircraft nearer to the margin of safety. Would the right hon. Gentleman watch that aspect very carefully?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, certainly. That is obviously one factor.
    Mr. Onslow: Would the Minister agree that, if this important subject is to be intelligently debated, the public must have as much information as possible about all sides of it? Will he agree that there is a strong case for a conference on this and that there may be a strong case for the establishment of an airports consultative council so that local residents can know the facts?
    Mr. Jay: We have just had one international conference. We have made a number of statements, and I propose to make more in due time.

  SHIPPING

    Credit Terms
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the shipping industry as to the need for better credit terms when they order from British shipyards, to remove the present advantages of their competitors who order here.
    Mr. Jay: I am considering representations on these lines from the Chamber of Shipping.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the President aware that there is continuing feeling about this matter? Will he look again at the paragraph of the Geddes Report which deals with this matter, bearing in mind that the need has, perhaps, become more urgent since that Report was published?
    Mr. Jay: I will take note of what the hon. Member says. I am discussing this matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, who is now responsible for shipbuilding.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend do this with speed? Is he aware that the British shipbuilding industry is in one of the worst declines that it has experienced? Does he realise that quick action is now needed?
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. I do not know whether you have observed, Mr. Speaker, that since the responsibilities of the Ministry of Aviation in respect of civil aviation licensing were transferred to the Board of Trade, the number of Questions addressed to the Board of Trade has increased. There are 84 on the Order Paper today. In addition, this afternoon quite a number of supplementary questions have been addressed to Ministers from the Front Bench on this side of the House. Since I arrived in the Chamber at five minutes to three, there have been two supplementary questions from the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), two from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), three from the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and one from the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin).
Is it not a derogation of the rights of private Members, who have been sitting in the Chamber in the hope that their important Questions might be reached, that there should be so many questions from the Opposition Front Bench? I appeal to you to find some way in which hon. Members who put down Questions about important aviation matters can have those questions reached, especially when the Questions are put down long in advance.
Mr. Speaker: The number of Questions, not only to the President of the Board of Trade, but to almost all Ministers, is increasing. I cannot do anything about them.
As for Front Bench spokesmen who seek to intervene, the House is probably not aware that sometimes more would intervene if they managed to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during Question Time. They do not always do so.
This is a matter for the good sense of the House. It is obvious that the Front Bench will want to intervene from time to time when the Question of a back bench Member raises some problems which the Front Bench regards as of serious importance. This is all a matter in which Mr. Speaker himself can do nothing. It is a matter for the House itself.

MALTA
Mr. Sandysasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the Malta Government's intention to withdraw legal status of the British forces tomorrow, whether he will make a statement about the position.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): The High Commissioner was instructed to make a new approach to the Malta Government on 6th February. He did so the same evening and I understand that the Malta Government are still considering these proposals. I expect to receive a very early reply, but in the meantime, at this very delicate stage, I am sure the House will understand if I do not make a full statement at this moment.
Mr. Sandys: While I am glad that, in the face of universal condemnation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the Government are having second thoughts, and while I naturally wish success to these consultations, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he will assure us that the Government are prepared to consider extending the four-year period of the rundown, as any mere phasing within that period would be totally insufficient and would be just tinkering with the problem?
Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the House would consider it advisable not to go into the detail of the proposals which have been put to the Malta Government by the High Commissioner and which are now being considered. The House might like to know that, although the Malta Government has not completed its consultations with the General Workers' Union and the unions of Malta and the Opposition, it has decided nevertheless not to proceed at the moment with the further stages of the Visiting Forces (Amendment) Bill.
Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us, on both sides of the House I imagine, will be extremely glad and relieved to hear the last item of information which he gave us about the Malta Government's concession, if that is the word? Is he also aware that we shall be very glad if the reports published today prove to be correct and that, without extending the four-year period, he is able to some extent to rephase the cuts within that four-year period, since that would be wholly in accordance with what was urged on the delegation of hon. Members by the Prime Minister of Malta when we were there the weekend before last?
Mr. Bowden: I should remind the House that the original proposals by the British Government were that the rundown of two-thirds of the forces in Malta should take place over a period of two years, later amended by myself on a visit to Malta to a period of four years. I think that we should leave it at that for the moment. These discussions are now going on and they are very delicate and I do not think that we would add anything or help anything by further discussion at this stage.
Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State will recall that on his last visit to Malta he started by saying that there was no room for any negotiation on any major matter—I think that those were his actual words. Can we take it—I hope that we can—that that condition is no longer imposed?
Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to do so, but he misquoted me. What I said in Malta was that, in my view, there did not seem to be much hope of a further

1661
concession beyond the four years, because I was going out there with a concession of four years as against the earlier proposal for two years. Nevertheless, in view of what is happening at the moment and as the discussions in Malta are as difficult for them as they may be for this country, I think that we should leave the matter there and I will promise the House a full statement as soon as one can be made.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be widespread satisfaction that the Malta Government has deferred discussion of the Visiting Forces Bill? Will he bear in mind that, whatever view any hon. or right hon. Gentleman may take about the need to cut our defence commitments, there is no hon. or right hon. Gentleman who wants British policy to result in widespread unemployment in Malta?
Mr. Bowden: The House should realise that wherever British troops are withdrawn, whether from Malta or any other part of the world, there is bound to be some reduction of employment of the civilian population.
Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the immense majority of hon. Members on this side of the House very firmly take the view that there is absolutely no justification whatever for any further rephasing of the military aspect of this exercise? Is he further aware that we regard the economic aid programme for Malta as substantial, and will he bear in mind the fact that we expect the Malta Government to help itself?
Mr. Bowden: I have no intention of going beyond saying that, in the proposals which are now being considered by the Government of Malta, there are proposals which will enable them to get over the difficulties of unemployment which may be created as a result of the rundown.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) has said about Malta he speaks for himself? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House anything about the Soviet offer of aid to Malta? Has Mr. Kosygin had anything to say about this?
Mr. Bowden: On the latter point, I know no more than the hon. Gentleman on this question. I have seen these reports in the Press and I do not place a great deal of reliance upon them.
Mr. Mayhew: Since even four years is quite a short period in which to avoid the difficulties of unemployment upon our military withdrawal, may I ask what studies my right hon. Friend has begun about the impact of our military with-drawl from Bahrain and Singapore?
Mr. Bowden: I am aware that my right hon. Friend is in favour of a withdrawal from the Far East in the period of three years, which would mean a great deal of local unemployment. We should treat this matter rather more carefully, rather more seriously, and not jump to conclusions.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Ballot for Notices of Motion.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Territorial Associations (Redundancy)
  Mr. Awdry: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th February, I shall call attention to compensation for redundant civil employees of Territorial Associations, and move a Resolution.
  Motorway System
  Dr. John Dunwoody: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th February, I shall call attention to the future development of the motorway system, and move a Resolution.

  Educational System
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 24th February, I shall call attention to the importance of keeping the educational system free from political interference and move a Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That his House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

THE PRESS
3.45 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I should perhaps start by declaring an interest. I speak as one who has spent 26 years working in newspaper offices, 12 of them full-time and 14 of them part-time. I made my first speech in the House, in October, 1946, partly for that reason, on the Press. I welcome this debate, and also the zealous and jealous concern which so many hon. Members showed for the freedom and independence of the Press when I announced the Governments decision on The Times and the Thomson Organisation immediately before Christmas.
I am sure that it is right that Parliament should debate this whole issue, and do so if possible in a non-party spirit, because it is in essence far more a matter for Parliament than for any Government to decide. What we all want to preserve is the greatest possible freedom, independence and variety in our national and local newspapers. Few things seem to me more abhorrent than the idea of Government control of either the presentation of news or the free expression of opinion in the Press.
We have had quite enough examples in the last 40 years in some other countries of where that leads to make us all reject it out of hand. That is why I said, in reply to supplementary questions on 21st December, and still say, that this is the last industry in which any government in this country would wish to intervene if they could possibly help it.
The trouble is, that in so far as Press variety and independence are threatened in this country, they are threatened not by any Government, but by the economic peculiarities of the British newspaper industry, by the tendency towards concentration in fewer and fewer hands, and by the fall in the number of newspapers. Parliament is confronted here with the ancient but obstinate problem: how does one compel people to be free, even when sometimes they cannot afford it? This problem is sometimes almost as intractable as the problem in the industrial
1664
sphere of trying to compel people to compete when they do not want to.
Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, I am convinced that we must all of us, Parliament, the Government, newspaper managements and the public, stick resolutely to the objective of maintaining genuine variety and independence in the Press. There is no other way, even if one allows for the valuable help from this point of view of radio and T.V. competition, of guaranteeing the genuineness of the democratic process of debate and decision.
Only last week, I noticed one more illustration of the value of variety in the control of our newspapers. Lord Attlee made a short statement—characteristically short, two sentences—on the European Economic Community. This was not recorded in the editions which I saw of The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail the Financial Times or the Daily Mirror. It was reported in The Guardian, the Daily Express, and the Sun. Whether or not these exclusions or inclusions were accidental or deliberate, I have no idea; but we should all agree, from many such examples, that the more newspapers we have, the more likely the public is to know what is going on, and to be able to reach fair judgments.
If, however, we accept that Press freedom is necessary for democratic choice, we must face the awkward fact that a newspaper cannot be free unless it is commercially successful. The constant dilemma, and the fascination of journalism is that newspapers do, or ought to, try to maintain professional standards quite apart from commercial success. But if they do not pay, the hard truth is that they cannot survive.
The reasons why the industry has got into its present difficulties are not simply the failings of Fleet Street, glaring though these may be. These failings are not notably more glaring than they were as I can remember them in the mid-1930s and the mid-1950s, although some older journalists would say that there was rather greater fidelity to fact in those days. Most people in Fleet Street knew of these shortcomings without ever having the help of an Economist Intelligence Unit report of 600 pages, which I welcome for the admirable way in which

1665
it has shed light on a great array or facts.
What has happened in recent years is that the economic climate has changed. I was one of those who predicted—it was not difficult—in the debate in October, 1946 that in the newspaper industry
"… a tendency to amalgamate and combine will continue to be at work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1946; Vol. 428. c. 527.]
just as in other industries, because of the economies of scale. Not merely has this happened, but in addition, what most of us did not foresee, newspapers ceased to be an expanding industry in the 1950s after nearly half a century of growing circulation. In addition, the price of newsprint, which even I can remember as at £11 a ton in the early 1930s in Fleet Street, now stands at about £57 a ton.
Saturation point also seems to have been about reached in the very high level of British newspaper readership, at just about the time when television and commercial television competition for advertisements started in the 1950s and 1960s. As a result of television, not only have the newspapers suffered from the competition of a new source of information, debate and entertainment, but a share of available advertisements has been diverted. Economically, therefore, we are seeing the quite familiar phenomenon of an industry which has developed too many easy and comfortable practices during a period of prosperity later left high and dry by the receding tide. It is not at all unknown for other industries at such moments to ask for help from the taxpayer.
I have no wish to introduce any partisan argument in this debate, and it was only when, on 21st December, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) tried rather rashly to argue that the newspapers' difficulties were, somehow, all due to the present Government's economic policy that I remarked also on the effects of television advertisements.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who I think hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, will not be so far-fetched today as to pretend that all these troubles are due to the present Government. He knows perfectly well, as we all do, that there are long-term economic forces at
1666
work; that the News Chronicle and Star were swallowed up and that Odhams was taken over by the Daily Mirror organisation during the period of the previous Government; that it is the fact that advertisements have certainly been lost to the television companies; and that without the economic restraints of the last six months the country as a whole would have slid back towards the sort of balance of payments deficit from which we suffered in 1964. That would have been a high price to pay for maintaining the advertising revenue of the newspapers.
Therefore, we had better all admit what we know to be true—that the present economic difficulties of the newspaper industry are deep-rooted and persistent. The Economist Intelligence Unit report, commissioned, let us remember, to their credit, by both sides of the industry jointly, has most effectively brought to light the extent of over-manning, of wasteful and restrictive practices—not by any means only in the printing departments—and weak management which, in some cases, prevails. Frankly, this did not greatly surprise me. Having moved five times in my life between newspaper offices, on the one hand, and Government Departments, on the other, I have always found the contrast in efficiency and economic use of resources positively staggering.
There are, of course, as always in an imperfect world, great contrasts between one newspaper group and another. I note, for instance, that mention was made in the debate in another place of the interesting fact that the newspaper managements which the Report finds most efficient turn out to be those headed by men of the most mature years. That in itself shows that there is some difference on these matters. However that may be, the first necessity surely is for the newspapers to do what any industry must do which has become lax in its habits in a period of easy prosperity—that is, to reorganise and streamline its methods and practices so as to achieve a far more economical use of resources.
I believe that, on the evidence of the E.I.U. Report and the Monopolies Commission's Report on The Times, it should be perfectly possible to do that, despite the peculiar difficulties of newspaper production in this country. There are, for

1667
one thing, great possibilities of technological advance offering major economies if the capital can be found. It cannot be impossible, with the huge newspaper readership of today, for newspapers with circulations of hundreds of thousands or millions to survive economically if the industry is rationally organised.
In the Government's considered view, therefore, it is emphatically for the industry itself, management and unions, to find the solution and not to rely on some rescue action by the Government. It is not impossible, in our view, for the industry to find such a solution and it is clearly desirable that it should, because no workable system of Government support without Government control, or the suspicion of Government control, has yet been devised.
I should like to congratulate the management and unions of The Guardian on having only last week, after, I believe, a good deal of negotiation, reached a sensible agreement for greater productivity and efficiency which should enable—I hope that it will—that newspaper to carry on printing in London and so avoid a crisis which all of us would have deeply deplored. Let us also remember that the circulation of the quality newspapers, as they are called, as a whole has been continuing to rise, and that a great many local and provincial newspapers still survive and are commercially successful and maintain their independence, although the tendency for these also to be swallowed up has to be carefully watched.
For that and other reasons, Parliament insisted, through the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, that major Press mergers should in future obtain the consent of the Board of Trade; and it empowered the Board to refer such proposals to the Monopolies Commission. One thing at least which the Government, with the authority of Parliament, can do is to stop a merger when it is economically possible for the two newspapers or the two firms to survive separately. What it cannot do is to force them to survive separately when one is not economically viable on its own. Both possibilities are real.
For instance, in the case of the disappearance of the News Chronicle and the Star, which many of us keenly
1668
regretted at the time, it would probably have been impossible for these two newspapers to carry on commercially on their own even if the Government had had power to stop a merger. In the different case, however, of the Daily Mirror and Odhams, it would have been perfectly possible economically for both to survive independently; and it was, ironically in that case, the very superior success of the Odhams magazines which led to the takeover. This shows at any rate that the negative control is worth having even if it is, no doubt, seldom used.
In accordance with those new powers, therefore, I referred, as I was bound to do, the proposed amalgamation between The Times and the Sunday Times to the Commission. The Commission, which I should like to thank for its commendable speed and very thorough report, found, in effect, that union with the Thomson Organisation was by far the most practical hope of preserving The Times as a separate independent newspaper. I decided that we were bound to accept that, if we faced the realities of the situation, but that, nevertheless, Parliament should have the most binding guarantees possible of the future independence of The Times.
There were also very natural anxieties about the printing arrangements of the Observer and The Guardian arising from this arrangement since the Observer is printed on The Times presses and the London edition of The Guardian on presses in Thomson House. Long-term security for both these arrangements was written into the original contracts—until 1984, oddly enough perhaps, for the Observer and until 1976 for The Guardian. Both newspapers were anxious about possibilities of commercial disadvantage which might arise if they were unable to withdraw from long-term contracts with newspapers which had become their competitors.
The Observer has now negotiated the right to withdraw from its arrangements with Times Newspapers Limited at one year's notice but has retained the right to receive five years' notice of termination from the printers. Lord Thomson has given The Guardian the right to cancel its printing contract at any time without penalty. The Monopolies Commission considered that the renegotiation of these arrangements was not a question

1669
on which it could properly suggest special safeguards in the public interest. I accepted its view and I think that a reasonable settlement has been reached.
Secondly, the Commission received from Lord Thomson an undertaking that the separate identity of the two papers—The Times and Sunday Times—would be preserved and that their two separate editors would be independent—that is, free to express their own opinions without interference from the editor-in-chief.
The majority of the Monopolies Commission was content with this, but I took the view that the personal assurance from Lord Thomson should be confirmed by the Thomson Organisation as such. Let me hasten to add that when I said in answer to a question on 21st December that personal assurances from Lord Thomson were not sufficient, I did not mean, as might perhaps have been misread, that his word was not reliable. This shows the danger of supplementary answers, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will agree.
What I meant was that Lord Thomson would not be for ever in control of the Organisation. I therefore obtained, in a letter to the Board of Trade from the Thomson Organisation, an assurance on behalf of the Organisation, not limited in time, that the two papers' separate identity would be preserved and the editors' independence respected. Now that both editors have been appointed, I think that we might wish them all good fortune in their independent existence and add that not just the Board of Trade but Parliament will jealously watch to see that these undertakings are honoured.
The then Leader of the Liberal Party asked me, very naturally, on 21st December—I am glad that the present Leader of the Liberal Party is now present and listening to what I am saying—why the undertakings on the independence of the editors could not be made legally as well as morally binding. The answer is that, short of depriving the proprietor of the right to appoint and dismiss the editor, there was no means by which these undertakings could be made legally binding. The obligation to respect the independence of an editor is incapable of precise legal definition, at least in the view of my legal advisers, and therefore cannot be made enforceable in the courts. In its nature it can be only morally binding.
1670
I think that the Commission, the Government and Parliament have now gone as far as is humanly possible to make this obligation inescapable. I also believe that the paramount importance which we all attach to it is well understood in Thomson House and, indeed, in Printing House Square.
Quite apart from The Times, however, one of the most disturbing conclusions in the Economist Intelligence Unit Report was the prediction that another four national newspapers might disappear in the next five years if economic solutions were not found. In a recent debate in another place much anxiety was expressed about this. What the E.I.U. Report said, however, was that this would happen if the necessary drastic remedies were not accepted. The warning to the industry is therefore plain; and, as I say, The Guardian, to its credit, has already acted on it.
Meanwhile, a number of suggestions have very understandably been put forward for one sort or another of Government support for ailing newspapers. I do not say that there is no case for something on these lines, in the last resort, if all else failed, and if the only alternative were concentration of the Press almost totally in the hands of one or two individuals.
These suggestions tend to take two main forms: either—this one was voiced in another place—that Government financial aid should be channelled through some independent authority, such as the Arts Council, or the National Film Finance Corporation, or the U.G.C.; or, alternatively, that there should be some system of levies which would redistribute revenue as between the fortunate and less fortunate papers.
The Government will study these and other proposals, and indeed we are studying them now. But I must say straight away that I see the most formidable difficulties in all of them. Any authority channelling Government aid, even indirectly, would have to decide which newspapers received it and which did not, and, unless any assistance was to be permanent, which is a rather fearsome thought, the unhappy authority would have to decide when it ceased in a given case and when, in effect, a newspaper was

1671
to be closed down. I fear that those responsible would have to be near-archangels not merely always to be just but also everywhere to be believed to be just.
There is, incdentally—I hope most people will agree—no parallel here with the B.B.C., because the B.B.C. is a forum of debate and does not, like a newspaper, express political views as those of the Corporation. Nor is there, I think, much parallel with the Arts Council or the N.F.F.C., since they do not finance political or party opinion or propaganda, though I am bound to say that only this very afternoon at Question Time my Department was criticised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on the ground that we had indirectly financed a film which contained some theories which he did not like. That. I think, is a warning of where we might get to.
The second suggested alternative of some system of levies supporting the weak, in effect at the expense of the strong, while possibly not impracticable, would also, it seems to me, raise the most formidable problems of discrimination for whoever had the job of administering it.
The Government, therefore, believe that, while the study of such last resort remedies should be pursued—and everybody is very welcome to put forward new ideas in this debate and, indeed, elsewhere—it is unquestionably for the industry itself to set about the task, which we do not believe to be impracticable, of sorting out its own economic difficulties in the light of modern conditions and of the Report which it has itself commissioned, and with the help of the new Joint Board under Lord Devlin which it has also itself set up.
If the industry approaches us, we shall of course respond as sympathetically as we can, keeping in view the objectives which I have set out this afternoon. But it is our firm conviction that the newspapers themselves, if they are to be, and to be seen to be, independent, must find the main solution independently of the Government.
Mr. Terence Boston: Does what my right hon. Friend has just said mean that, if the unhappy prediction made in the Economist Intelli-
1672
gence Unit Report came to pass and, say, four or five newspapers closed down, the Government still would not regard that as sufficient reason to intervene even at that stage?
Mr. Jay: That is a hypothetical question. What I have said means that I do not think that these unfortunate eventualities need occur if the newspapers do what is, in our view, both possible and desirable.
4.7 p.m.
Mr. Edward Heath: We on this side of the House also welcome this debate and are glad that the Government have found time for it. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that this is not a party matter; it is very much a House of Commons matter and it has already been debated in another place in exactly the same spirit. This, too, we welcome.
I found myself entirely in agreement with the two themes of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—first, the vital need to maintain a free and independent Press and, secondly, the proposition that the answers to the problems of the Press must be found by the Press itself and not by the Government supporting it or interfering. Therefore, I find myself in entire agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on those two main themes, but I hope that he will not feel that for this reason I ought to be prevented from commenting once or twice upon the activities of the Government in this respect.
I suppose that for everyone in the House, the Press exerts an endless fascination. It is not only the race for news, almost always against time, but a combination of intense human feeling with extraordinary technical capability. It is those qualities which make the Press, as an industry, quite different from any other industry with which the President of the Board of Trade has to deal.
To those who play any part in the industry, that must always be so. The President of the Board of Trade has declared his own previous interest. Perhaps I, too, ought to declare an interest, though over a much shorter period than the right hon. Gentleman's. I was a working journalist, a sub-editor and a news editor. That was not a case of rapid promotion. As it was a very small newspaper, I did all three jobs at the same

1673
time. There one was writing copy against time, "subbing" other people's copy—[Interruption.] Yes, and very often "spiking" my own. The most fascinating part is watching the make-up on the stone, the smell of ink, and seeing the final pattern of a page. Every time that I go into a newspaper office today, I have only to get the smell of ink for the same tingle to be in the blood again. I suppose that the President of the Board of Trade has much the same experience.
Outside the newspaper office, frequently there is an extraordinary love-hate relationship between politicians and the Press or, indeed, between the Press and anyone about whom the Press writes.
That, then, is the fascination. Is it sufficiently justifiable for the House to spend a day debating the Press? Is it just a question of curiosity and of trying to interfere in other people's business? If I may say so, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have always expressed publicly their concern about the position of the Press, for a number of reasons, I think.
First of all, I believe that they have always had, deep down, the feeling that, as the Press is a capitalist institution, it is bound to work against their interests.[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Hear, hear". How he can say that today with the make-up of the national Press and the support which the Treasury Bench has been getting from it in almost unbelievable circumstances? Whether it be the national Press, the quality Press, the weekly or daily Press, I think that that argument has been knocked for six.
They have always felt that it was bound to lead to a monopoly position, and that that would be bad for their party. I have been looking into this a little. The Prime Minister's constituency has a monopoly situation of the Press. So have those of the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Commonwealth Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Education, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Technology. They do not seem to have done so badly with the monopoly position of the Press in their own constituencies, and some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with I he largest majorities have a monopoly Press situation in their constituencies.
1674
Then, too, there has always been their anxiety about advertising. They have felt that, because the revenue of the Press to such a large extent comes from advertising, that, therefore, was bound to influence the policy of newspapers and militate against their party. I should not have thought that that was a valid argument today, and I do not think that anyone has tried to prove that that is so.
Incidentally, it is very interesting to see the extent to which a Government which has been so critical of advertising has, as the Financial Secretary revealed on 3rd February, greatly increased the amount which the Government themselves spend on advertising in the short time in which they have been in power. The President of the Board of Trade could claim that, thereby, they are trying to help the Press in its difficulties. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot have his argument both ways.
The third and, to me, regrettable reason why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes show anxiety is because they are prejudiced against change. They want to maintain the status quo and, on the whole, have not been prepared to adapt their attitudes to changes which, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given, have to come about in the newspaper industry. That being so, in order to keep the status quo, some of them would be prepared to have Government support and intervention. For that reason, I am glad to have heard the very clear statement from the President of the Board of Trade that he does not take that view.
May I comment on that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech where he referred to the Monopolies Commission? In carrying out its work, it was as expeditious as possible. However, there is no doubt that the interregnum of three months during which it was considering the matter is a very long time in the life of a newspaper under threat, and that can be very demoralising to its staff, who do not know what the outcome will be at the end of the inquiry.
What is the alternative with which the Monopolies Commission is faced? As the President of the Board of Trade has said so often it is either that it accepts a merger or one of the papers dies. He put forward the view that the

1675
Daily Herald could have continued independently. I did not know that that was the situation.
Mr. Jay: I did not say the Daily Herald; I said that Odhams could have continued.
Mr. Heath: Odham's is a different matter and could have done so. The alternative was either that the Daily Herald was taken over under the present arrangement or it would have died. The staff in such a situation is faced with the constant anxiety about whether they should continue with their work with a merger or, if the paper is to die, should find other occupations. I hope that, on some future occasion, the Monopolies Commission will now have some standards by which they will be able to act more quickly than they did in that case.
Those are differences between us. However, we are agreed on one thing, and that is that, for a healthy society, we must have a free and independent Press. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that that has to be on a commercial basis. But that does not alter the fact that the newspaper industry itself and all those who take part in it, particularly those who write in it, recognise that they have more than a commercial responsibility. They have a responsibility for their own integrity in the way in which they handle news and views and present it in a free society.
In having this debate, I ask myself if there is any real danger to our free society in the present position, or is there a real danger to us in the foreseeable future. In considering that, it is not enough to consider just the national Press. At Westminster, perhaps, we tend to think too much of the national Press, but one has to think of the Press as being the national Press, the provincial Press, the dailies, the evenings, the weeklies, and, in particular, the local Press. One has also to take account of radio and television as being means of information and discussion in a free society.
If we take into account the situation of all those different media of communication and the numbers involved, I do not see a threat to our free society in the present position. Given that action
1676
is taken now, I do not think that there is a real threat in the future. That is a considerable proviso, but, in view of the enlightenment and discussion which will come about after the E.I.U. Report, I hope that action will be taken. I shall have something to say about that in a moment.
I believe that the great provincial papers have a very important part to play in a free society. The President of the Board of Trade has mentioned The Guardian. To me, it was a sad day when The Guardian crossed the proud title of "Manchester" out of its heading and rushed to the Metropolis. It was a particularly irritating day when afterwards it lectured us about the importance of regional development. It would have helped its economics if it had not crossed out "Manchester" and rushed to London.
What is more, those of us who read a great deal of the Press feel that, when we read a paper from outside London, we are reading a view which is likely to be different from the view in London. It may be more earthy and less hot-house than what we get from the Press in London sometimes. The provincial papers have a particularly important part to play.
The same is true of local papers. It is not often realised, but it is shown by research done in by-elections, that the great majority of our citizens take their views from what they read in local newspapers even more than from what they read in the national Press or hear on television—[interruption.] I should not have thought that that was a matter of dismay for the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), but something which would have pleased him.
That, therefore, is the importance of the work which the local newspapers are doing. I believe that they would be helped further by local commercial radio stations in which they were allowed to have participation. It might be that that would cause some damage to the national newspapers, and it would be a matter of balance, therefore. But, as far as the importance of local newspapers is concerned, I believe that local commercial radio stations would help ease the problems of their existence. I do not believe that there is any real threat to our society today, to our democratic way of life, but

1677
there are the economic difficulties, and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I congratulate the industry on commissioning the E.I.U. Report and on its courage in publishing it, whether or not that was somewhat stimulated by the publication of The Guardian.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the Board of Trade commissioned the E.I.U. Report?
Mr. Heath: I said that I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the industry as a whole, both sides of it, on commissioning it. This is an example which it has been suggested might be followed by other industries. I rather doubt whether there are many other industries which are as cohesive as this one, and on which similar reports could be published. It may be that there are sections of industry, or individual firms, in respect of which a report of this kind would be very useful, but it is up to the industry to put its own house in order. The weaknesses have been revealed, and it is up to the industry to put them right.
Many of the weaknesses are not peculiar to the newspaper industry. I regret that weakness of management extends into other spheres of British industry and needs attention. Restrictive practices are not limited to the newspaper industry, though it may be that they are in a more extreme form here. In taking this action I hope that all sections of the industry will be prepared not only to play their part in rectifying the weaknesses, but also in stimulating the action which requires to be taken generally.
Let me be more specific. I have never understood why a trade union should limit itself solely to the claims that it wishes to make on behalf of its members. Why should it not take part in stimulating the management to eliminate weaknesses which it knows exists? It is not only a question of the proprietors and shareholders who are involved. The editorial section, the management section, the production section, and the trade unions are all involved, and I hope that they will all set out to see that these weaknesses are remedied.
1678
I do not believe that it is up to us as a Parliament to tell them how to do it, and I suspect that we would not be very welcome if we did. Television, the radio, and the Press have the privilege of telling us how to run our show, but it is not a reciprocal privilege. I do not think that we ought to try to tell the Press how it should run its show, and it is not the business of the Government to interfere in running it.
Nor is it the business of the Government to offer financial support of any kind, either so that the Government can try to influence the Press, or so that the Press may feel that it is under an obligation to the Government, of whatever colour, because of some obligations which it has. For this reason I was rather unhappy about the proposal of the Prime Minister, which was supposed to have been made, that if the Press took out an indemnity against strikes the Government would be prepared to go in £ for £. This was reported in the Press as being made after his speech, in discussions with the Press. I do not believe that the indemnity suggestion is a very practicable one. If it were, it would have been adopted long ago by the newspapers themselves. Nor do I think that it is a satisfactory arrangement for the Government to take part in an indemnity policy of that kind especially when a member of the Government, the Minister of Labour, may be involved in any disputes which arise, and they may wish to protect that interest because of their contribution to the indemnity policy.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, if papers begin to fall by the wayside this is a matter of great regret, but I do not believe that they can operate on other than a commercial basis. We must recognise certain economic characteristics about this industry—on which the right hon. Gentleman touched briefly—if we are to have an understanding of it, and the things affecting it.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from his prediction about the healthy future of the regional and local Press, may I ask whether he agrees that if two or three of the four papers which have been mentioned fell by the wayside during the next three or four years there would be a serious threat to freedom and variety of opinion?
Mr. Heath: I said that I agreed with the President of the Board of Trade that if they take the action which is required they ought not to fall by the wayside, and this assumes that we move out of the present stage of the economy into the normal later stages. If three or four of the national papers were to fall by the wayside, obviously that would make a great difference, but I would not agree with the implication in the Prime Minister's speech that we need to have almost exactly the present number of newspapers, and I shall come to the reason for saying that in a moment.
This industry has certain characteristics, and they run through all the different sections of the industry which I have mentioned. First, as the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a contracting industry, in part because of the availability of new media of communication. I think that the industry has to face this. We have to accept that it is a contracting industry, and it has to adjust itself to this situation.
The second characteristic is that, on the whole—and when I say "on the whole" I mean taking it right across the board—the demand for newspapers is non-elastic. In other words, if prices go up right across the board the demand remains roughly the same, but if the price of an individual newspaper goes up, the demand suddenly becomes very elastic indeed, and people leave that newspaper and go to others. This shows that people are more concerned with the price of a newspaper than with continuing to buy a particular one which may suit their own views. I think that this is against the general belief about the attitude of people towards a free Press. This, I think, has an effect on the general economic structure of the papers.
Thirdly, as the right hon. Gentleman also said, there are increasing returns to scale in this industry, and for a double reason. First, some costs do not rise even though output is greatly increased. Secondly, advertising revenue rises faster than circulation. Thus, if it is possible to increase circulation, one benefits in two ways, and one tends to benefit at the expense of one's competitors. In other words, to him that hath shall be given, and success goes to the successful. This is really the key to the position in the newspaper industry.
1680
The result of that is that it is in the interests of those who are able to up circulation to keep their prices down, because it makes it much more difficult for their competitors, and, secondly, as the unions negotiate wages on a craft basis right across the board, it is in the management's interest to let the unions put the wages up because it makes it much more difficult for their competitors, and they can go on becoming more successful. It is these tendencies which lead to imperfect competition, tending to move into a monopoly situation. This is why it is right to have a Monopolies Commission to deal with it.
But even these economic characteristics are affected by two things. First, the immense damage which can be caused by a strike, which very few newspapers can face, for the very simple reason that the loss of sales on one day can never be made good on another. This industry is unlike almost every other industry, and so it is under pressure. It is not only a question of weak management. It is the extraordinary cost of a strike in these circumstances.
The situation is intensified by the dominant position of advertising in the total revenue. This is where the economic cycle comes in. As soon as there is a turn-down in the economic cycle, advertising revenue drops sharply. This affects newspapers which have smaller circulations, because in a time of economic downturn advertisers keep their advertising with the papers with the largest circulation. This again intensifies the natural economic pressures going on in the newspaper world.
Sir John Rodgers: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that while it is true that in respect of mass produced goods advertisers tend to keep to those papers with the largest circulations, for those goods which have a more selective market the criterion is cost per thousand readers? Often newspapers make the mistake of trying to boost circulation, and therefore distort the cost per thousand readers.
Mr. Heath: I agree with my hon. Friend who has better knowledge of this matter, but it remains true that, from the point of view of circulation, a time of economic downturn amplifies the weaknesses and the strengths of the industry,

1681
and these are the underlying economic characteristics.
In the present position we have to look at the factors which have operated over the last two years. In the long-term, certain technical factors are working in the opposite direction from the factors which I have mentioned, but I will first deal with the temporary factors. We have had two years and three months of squeeze under the Government. I do not want to enter into the pros and cons of that, but for a long period a downturn of this kind has a considerable effect on advertising revenue. I am told that between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. has gone. That has obviously undermined the financial position of the newspapers.
I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that newspapers cannot be exempted from the general economic situation; indeed, the Government said that they wanted a shake-out, and this is part of the shake-out. Presumably, therefore they cannot criticise it. It is part of their general policy. The results which they ask for are being brought about.
But there is another aspect of the situation which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention, namely, the surcharge on newsprint. During the two years in which the surcharge was in operation the total amount paid in respect of newsprint was £7, 281, 632. The Canadians agreed to pay half the surcharge themselves, and there were one or two other small exemptions, but the amount borne by the United Kingdom users in those two years was just over £5 million. That is a direct Government responsibility. Taking £5 million out of the newspaper industry over two years has undoubtedly had a tremendous impact upon its financial stability.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Opposition raised this matter in the debate on 2nd December, 1964, which did not come on until 2 o'clock in the morning. We moved an Amendment to exempt newsprint from the surcharge, but we got no sympathy from the Government. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would deny that the surcharge of over £5 million has had a considerable effect on the financial position of the industry.
Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman's exact figures imply some assumptions as
1682
to what newsprint prices would have been in this period had there been no surcharge.
Mr. Heath: That is true. The Canadians agreed to accept half the surcharge, and I have allowed for that. As for the rest of the prices, there is not much difference. Let us assume that prices would have remained more or less as they were and not increased.
Mr. Wilkins: The right hon. Gentleman will know that prices of newsprint are normally increased about every three years, and on those occasions by substantial amounts.
Mr. Heath: That does not alter the position of the newspapers. They had to find an extra £5 million to pay the surcharge from their financial resources. At the moment newsprint manufacturers have asked to be permitted to increase the price of newsprint by £2 a ton. Whether or not they will receive authority to do so I do not know, but if they do it must be borne in mind that the price of newspapers is pegged and therefore an additional burden is bound to be placed upon newspapers unless the Government take action to unpeg them. That is another factor for which the Government are responsible.
Newspapers get back S.E.T. They were exempted, as manufacturers. Nevertheless, they have had to find the money to pay each week—many of them, in their present position, from loans on which they have to pay 8 per cent. interest. That is another important factor.
The Selective Employment Tax applies to the advertising industry, and this has increased the cost of advertising, which, in turn, has rebounded on the newspaper industry. That is the third economic factor in the present situation. I have said that the Government ought not to intervene or subsidise, but I say at the same time that they should not have placed these burdens on the industry.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker)indicated dissent.
Mr. Heath: I am clear about that, even if the Minister without Portfolio is not. In other words, the surcharge should not have been applied to newsprint and the industry should not have had to carry the burden of that charge.
Mr. Roy Roebuck: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will happen to the price of newsprint if we enter the European Economic Community without negotiations?
Mr. Heath: I would have to refresh my memory very quickly on that point. We would have Scandinavian as well as French supplies in the Common Market, and the situation would probably be rather better. That is how we visualise the position in the negotiations, assuming that the Scandinavian countries come in.
On the best information that I can obtain it is clear that the industry is now on the verge of a technical revolution as great as Caxton's printing press. New and exciting vistas lie ahead for the industry if it is prepared to seize its opportunities. There is the technical development of new machines at a lower capital cost and with smaller manning. I find myself in disagreement with the Prime Minister when he said that the time when a young Northcliffe could come along, or a new Beaverbrook could revive a dying newspaper, were past.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman is pointing at his hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth. I was going to point to him. There is the epitome of Beaver-brook and Northcliffe combined. He has shown that with the new process of web offset it is possible to start a newspaper much more easily and to produce it much more cheaply. These processes can be greatly extended. I understand that at the moment it is possible to run off only 100,000 copies, but with new technical equipment spread out in different centres and computer-controlled centrally it would be possible to run off a mass circulation more cheaply and much more easily, with far fewer men.
People are also discussing the question whether we shall eventually have line equipment in our homes which will produce the equivalent of a daily newspaper. Like many others, I treat that suggestion with some scepticism, but that does not alter the fact that, from the point of view of the industry, these possibilities are now available.
In this situation, is there anything which the Government should be doing?
1684
I suggest that there are four things. One of the weaknesses exposed by the E.I.U. Report was a weakness of management. I have said that the Government must produce more facilities for the training of management, and this must be done soon and on a scale so far not considered either by the last Government or the present one.
Secondly, the Government have a rôle to play in dealing with restrictive practices. We have put forward suggestions for dealing with these. In this industry there is overmanning, as was pointed out by the E.I.U. Another factor of equal importance is the extent to which wage levels have been pushed up by restrictive practices on entry. That problem should also be tackled. We have suggested that it can be tackled by the creation of a registrar of trade unions, acting under rules laid down by Parliament, who would be able to give establishment to unions provided they dealt with matters such as freedom of entry, restrictive practices on manning, and so on. This could be done on a productivity agreement basis. A solution could then be reached on the lines arrived at by The Guardian. Any of these methods could be used, but there must be genuine productivity agreements to deal with these problems.
Thirdly, the Government must deal with the problem of S.E.T., which is another burden on the advertising industry and therefore, indirectly, on the newspaper industry.
Fourthly, the Government could help with the various research organisations over which it has influence, and sometimes control, in the development of the new techniques now largely being exploited in the United States. British manufacturers would embark on making this equipment and developing it if they saw a new demand for it developing, and if they saw that the problems of manning practices were being dealt with. There would therefore be a demand for this equipment, and management, having been trained and improved, would recognise the possibility of the equipment. I would prefer to see British equipment manufacturers making this equipment here and helping in scientific research sponsored by the Government than to see us buy only from the United States of America.
I conclude by referring to the work of the Press. Some of us would like

1685
to see further developments in what is published. We would like, for example, to see a deeper analysis of foreign policy, defence policy and home policy in addition to the daily commentary and reports; in other words, a much deeper and more fundamental analysis of these policies. If this is to happen, we must have what I previously described as a much more open society than we have today. Much greater provision of information of this kind must be forthcoming, and this is a sphere in which the Government can act and set an example. There should be much greater freedom of discussion about the issues which arise and the alternative courses open to the Government to follow in dealing with them.
Having been in Government for 13 years, I recognise the natural hesitation of Governments to adopt this approach. However, we in this country have perhaps gone too far in the other direction. I would on a partial, but not an impartial, occasion criticise the Government for the influence which they have brought to bear on the Press during their term of office. But today, as we are considering this matter impartially, I will not go into that—except to say that it was wrong of the Government to clamp down when they came to power on the production of any information by the Civil Service—by people well accustomed to handling these matters—and by the Foreign Office, which has had a long tradition of dealing with the Press. They clamped down, and the Prime Minister personally clamped down, on the provision of information of this kind.
In the House of Commons we thought, when the present Leader of the House took his present position, that there would be a revolution in approach towards these matters. The right hon. Gentleman appeared only six months ago in the guise of the back-bencher's friend. Now he is going down in history as "closure Crossman". He has not produced any revolution in discussion in the House of Commons about policy matters, and the specialist committees are obviously not going to produce the answer in the way it is really required.
An interesting example recently occurred in the American Senate and I draw it to the attention of the House because it
1686
occurred in one of the most difficult spheres of all—defence. The Secretary of State, Mr. McNamara, gave his evidence to the Senate Defence Appropriations Committee and, at the end of his evidence—with General Wheeler seated beside him—he said:
"General Wheeler has not prepared a separate statement today, but, as I mentioned in my comments on my own statement, there is a difference of view between us on the antiballistic missile system itself. I would like to ask, if I may, for him to have time to present his views to you. I think it is very important to hear them".
That is an interesting example of how, in the American Senate, on the most difficult subject of all, the Secretary of State and the Chief of Staff, who held different views, explained their views to the Senate Committee; and when General Wheeler was asked which policy he was following, he said that he was following the policy of the Secretary of State because that was the policy which had been laid down.
That might be considered an extreme example, but it shows that there is an enormous amount of room in our procedures—the way in which the Government handle their business and the information that they provide—for a discussion of the alternative and of which alternative should be followed. That is particularly true in the economic sphere and I suggest that one could start there, even if the Government are not prepared to deliver more information about financial matters.
I discovered a quotation the other day from Mr. Sorensen's book about the late President Kennedy. It stated that although Mr. Krushchev's
"… totalitarian system has many advantages as far as being able to move in secret, there is a terrific disadvantage in not having the abrasive quality of the press applied to you daily—even though we never like it and even though we wish they did not write it and even though we disapprove, there is not any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very very active press."
That seems to summarise the position very well. Perhaps I can modestly say, as one of those who has had a certain experience of the abrasive quality of the Press, that I agree entirely with those remarks of the late President Kennedy.
It is not only essential for a healthy society to have a free and independent Press. It is essential for the vitality of

1687
our society—and, in particular, the economic vitality of our society—to argue out these issues; and that can be done only by having a free Press in a free society with the Government themselves being prepared to provide the information which it ought to have.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: May I begin by declaring my interest in that I am the chairman of an organisation which owns some local newspapers? I am also by way of being a journalist. I should, perhaps, also add that what I shall say today will be wholly negative and almost totally unconstructive.
I agree with both Front Bench speakers that there is no artificial device which can reasonably work without Government interference and yet which can prop up a free Press. I say that because once one starts applying such devices—be they subsidies, the Government directing advertising along certain paths, a newsprint levy or anything else—one cannot avoid the odium of Government interference. The Press has not asked for help, although one would imagine from the fact of the debate that it had gone to the Government and said, "Do something for us". To its credit it has done nothing of the sort. The basic thing wrong with the Press today is that newspapers are sold at far too much below their cost of production.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I regret to have to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech so early, but, to take what he is saying to its logical conclusion, is he suggesting that the B.B.C. is not free because it is being subsidised?
Mr. Wyatt: No, and that point was dealt with by my right hon. Friend when he said that the B.B.C. was not peddling any political view, although it gives a forum for the expression of a variety of different views. There is a big difference between the B.B.C. and newspapers.
As I was saying, the basic trouble with the Press is that newspapers are being sold at far too much below their cost of production. It all began with Lord Northcliffe who started the ½d. Daily Mail and who quickly brought its circulation to the one million mark by 1900. He got enormous advertising revenue and was, therefore, able to go on subsidising
1688
his newspaper to an even larger circulation. The other popular newspapers were forced to follow suit, and so began the trend—backward or forward whichever way one wishes to describe it—of newspapers being sold at far less than their cost of production.
Until Lord Northcliffe arrived on the scene, newspapers had been sold very much at their cost of production. Indeed, during the 19th century they were normally sold at about ls. a time. Even the Banbury Guardian was sold in 1845 for 5d. a copy; and while its price was recently increased to 9d., in real terms it is being sold very much below its price of 5d. of 120 years ago. During the 19th century newspapers were being sold not only at, but above, their price of production and at that time there were 50 newspapers in London alone. And when one gets newspapers being sold at their cost of production one has the possibility of a greater variety of newspapers. That follows like night follows day.
I will quote from my experience of two local newspapers to indicate what I mean. The Banbury Guardian costs us I s. 10d. a copy to produce. In that charge is the printing, inks, materials and printing works charges of 9d. per copy. We increased the price to 9d. but we still receive only 5·1d. back because the newsagent takes one-third of the price and the wholesaler takes 15 per cent. of what is left after the newsagent has taken his one-third. So we are still 1s. 4·9d. below the cost of production. If we were to remove our advertising staff altogether and have no advertisements, that would save us 1·9d. per copy, which would still leave a gap of 1s. 3d. between the cost of production and what we receive after it has been sold.
May I take next, the Birmingham Planet, a large circulation newspaper. The costs begin in this case to come down a little, but even then each newspaper costs us 1s. 3d. to produce. It costs 6d. to print. There is a gap of 9·9d. on each copy after we receive our 5·1.d. Of course, these are very small newspapers, but however high up the scale we go in quantity we are left with this proposition.
The Daily Mirror, for example, costs 3d. to produce each copy. It is sold at 4d. so, as the newsagents take a third, and the wholesaler 15 per cent., without

1689
advertising the Daily Mirror would be sold at a fantastic loss every day. The Daly Mirror is happily placed because it enjoys an enormous advertising revenue and it probably could be sold at 3d. a copy. But if this practice were followed by some other newspapers they would get into difficulties.
All these worthy reports continually tell us how inefficient newspapers are and how vile the unions are to maintain restrictive practices. There may be some truth in all this, but it is not the whole answer. The elimination of all restrictive practices would not deal with the gaps I am talking about—nowhere near it. Much is said about the unions in the printing industry. Personally I have never had any difficulty in dealing with them—not the slightest. The moment we started printing by web offset I asked to see the relevant officials in the unions. I asked if they would give us their cooperation because we were the first in England to do it and it would be a revolution in newspaper printing, and they said "Yes". At this moment we have only just over half the number of men manning our machines as the Thompson organisation have been happy to agree to at Hemel Hempstead and elsewhere.
Mr. Wilkins: It is a legacy of the past.
Mr. Wyatt: As my hon. Friend says, it is a legacy of the past. I utter a word of caution here. The Leader of the Opposition spoke in optimistic terms about web offset printing. It is not necessarily cheaper. One gets a far better quality of product, but there is nothing cheaper for printing a local newspaper than by the old Cosser flatbed letterpress. One can never beat that for price. Of course, there are advantages in printing web offset at local centres, and using computers, and the introduction of colour will enable the industry to make a comeback as against commercial and colour television and ordinary television. This is very important, but we should not necessarily assume that it will be cheaper. It may turn out in the end to be more expensive.
On the point about restrictive practices, I understand from The Guardian that even under the new arrangements the contribution which the unions are making in abolishing or eliminating restrictive
1690
practices will save The Guardian about £160,000 a year. That may sound a lot of money, but it is not such a lot when one is running a great newspaper. I am told that it will provide only a breathing space and will not be a springboard for expansion and success. The restrictive practices side is greatly exaggerated. It is terribly easy to pin the blame on the unions and to say that that is why the industry is in a bad position.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: May I remind my hon. Friend that the E.I.U. Report says:
"Restrictive practices are not as bad as is generally believed. They do exist, particularly in the machine room and the process department but we do not believe that restrictive practices materially affect the final success or failure of any newspaper. …"
This underlines what my hon. Friend has said and contradicts what has been said from the Front Bench and elsewhere.
Mr. Wyatt: I agree with my hon. Friend, and share that view. Of course, it plays an important part. It would be much better if management were more efficient, but, however efficient management is, it cannot make the public read a newspaper which they do not want to read. Only journalists can do that.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Member is dealing with the question of restrictive practices from the point of view of overmanning and what is required in this respect with the amount of work done, but he is not dealing with the other aspect of restrictive practices on which I touched and which is dealt with in the Report—the level of wages which is the result of the provision of restrictive practices.
Mr. Wyatt: I am sure that there is a lot of truth in that, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and speak from the unions' point of view. I am glad to say that at Banbury—I have to be careful what I say here—we are not paying too much over the odds. The trouble is, of course, the gap between costs of production and the price at which a newspaper is sold. We all hope that will be filled up by advertising, and to a certain extent it has been over the years.

1691
What has happened to advertising? The right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) said that he thought it was down by 15 per cent., but I think that very optimistic. My information is that over the nation as a whole it is down 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., taking in local newspapers as well. I have done a great deal of research on this, although the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) may disagree with my figures. The Banbury Guardian, I am glad to say, is only down by 13·1 per cent. The Birmingham Planet, a new paper, which we could not have got started without web offset colour, is down by over 30 per cent. Whatever the figure, it is very large indeed compared with the profits and in many cases it wipes out profits completely and creates a large loss.
Newspapers have become even more vulnerable to economic fluctuations in recent years because of the introduction of commercial television. There is only a certain amount of advertising to be got out of the country at a given moment. The size of it can be expanded a little, but it cannot be enormously expanded and when one puts in a huge new medium taking millions of pounds every year that money has to come from somewhere and in this case the "somewhere" is newspapers. We hear that local radio may be commercially run with advertising. I should greatly deplore that. First, I do not think it necessary because it can be run so cheaply and paid for out of the rates. It would mean a very small rate, about ¼d. per head, or something of that kind. If it is done by advertising it will harm newspapers because the "cake" cannot be indefinitely expanded.
It is no good suggesting, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that local newspapers will benefit because they can participate in local radio stations, for by that means we would be ossifying the newspaper situation. It would mean that the fellow in a newspaper now would be artificially propped up by revenue from something else and if someone wanted to start a new newspaper he would not have the same backing. This is one of the basic reasons why so much of the Press of Britain has got into Lord Thomson's hands. I am not saying anything against Lord Thomson, for whom
1692
I have a great admiration and respect, but because—as he put it in his own words—he was given "a licence to print money" by the Conservative Government he was able to make enormous sums and to buy the Sunday Times and The Times itself. He would never have done that but for the fact that he was given a huge stake in Scottish Television. Other newspapers, not so fortunately placed, were not given a similar stake. I am glad that The Guardian has a stake in Anglia Television because that helps the newspaper to survive. It would be very much nearer coming to a close without that stake. But we ought to introduce new media with a commercial aspect and dish them out to existing newspapers because that ossifies and stultifies the structure which exists.
What should be done about newspapers? I think only one thing can be done. Newspapers should put up their prices. This is the simplest answer. For example, the Kent Messenger, which is published probably not far from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bexley, recently put up its price from 6d. to 8d. It has a circulation of about 70,000. I have been told by the Kent Messenger that initially it lost 5,000 circulation but immediately recovered 2,000 and probably will recover it all. It will, therefore, be able to stand the extra price because it is providing a genuine service which people want. It was able to go on selling and to make good much of the loss of the advertising revenue which it has suffered. I do not know yet how we shall fare with the Banbury Guardian and Birmingham Planet because we put up the price only last week, but my information so far is that we will not do too badly on it.
Before the war, the so-called quality newspapers used to be twice the price of the popular newspapers. Before the war, The Guardian and The Times used to cost twice as much as the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror. The reason why that is not the case today is that their managements have not had sufficient courage to try it out. In my view, The Guardian certainly ought to be 8d. today and not 5d., and The Times likewise should be 8d. instead of 5d. If all the popular newspapers go up in price, the quality newspapers should go up to twice the level of the popular newspapers. I believe that they would

1693
find that there was a hardcore of readers who feel they simply must get The Guardian's or The Times' view of life and would go on buying them even if their price were doubled or if they cost as much as a shilling.
Mr. Albert Murray: In taking that line of argument, does not my hon. Friend think that it would solidify the readership to those who can afford the price, so that ordinary people earning £11 or £12 a week would he restricted to the cheaper newspapers?
Mr. Wyatt: I take that view with a pinch of salt. After all, 9d. is only the price of three cigarettes. It is not a great deal to pay for an enormous newspaper. Anyone who cannot afford it can go to the local public library and read it. It is not so difficult. I do not think that anybody would be penalised by putting up the price of a newspaper.
Mr. John Wells: The hon. Member has mentioned the Kent Messenger. His hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), whose constituency, like mine, is covered by the Kent Messenger, has probably suffered from the number of letters that I have had complaining about its increase in price. As the hon. Member for Gravesend has said, many ordinary people are undoubtedly penalised by the increase in the price of a local newspaper.
Mr. Wyatt: No doubt, people are irritated by it, but we are all penalised by price increases. There is nothing remarkable about that. Had the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) been present earlier, he would have heard me say that the Banbury Guardian cost 5d. in 1845 and is only 9d. today. That is not a very fast rise. The same applies to the Kent Messenger.
Mr. John Wells: The hon. Member said—
Mr. Wyatt: I would rather not give way again. I do not want to hold up proceedings too long and I know that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. John Wells: On a point of order. The hon. Member said that if I had been here earlier, I would have heard what he said about his own newspaper. I was here earlier and I heard it.
Mr. Wyatt: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not benefit from it. If all the popular newspapers—the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express, and so on—were to go up by Id. in price, that would greatly help the newspapers which today are in a weaker state. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, prosperous newspapers do not go up in price because they would like to see their rivals killed. The weaker ones should be bold. They should try it out and see whether they cannot risk going up in price. If they have a distinctive message and approach to offer, people will buy their papers and they will be all right.
There has been much speculation about which are the four newspapers that the Economist Intelligence Unit thinks are in severe danger. Personally, I think that they are the Daily Sketch, the Sun, The Guardian and the Sunday Telegraph. The Daily Mail, the Observer and the Sunday Citizen are pretty wobbly, too. At least two of those papers, however, have the remedy in their own hands. The Observer should be at least 1s. and the Sunday Telegraph should be at least 9d. I think that they would obtain quite sufficient money from their readership at those prices.
Even if some of these newspapers, because of economics and their situation today, were to disappear, I do not believe that there would be any real threat to democracy. We have had newspapers disappear before without any threat to democracy. Newspapers will always be started and go. Different views will always break through somehow, even if it is on television, radio or anywhere else or even if it is by somebody starting a magazine like Private Eye. There is always room for a different view and it will always get its sales if there is genuine demand for it.
We should leave the newspaper industry to find the level between the desire to express different views in a variety of newspapers and the willingness of the public to pay for them. If they are sufficiently interesting, the public will pay for them. In due course, it may be that ways will be found of producing newspapers more cheaply so that they can be sold more widely and closer to the cost of production, but until newspapers are sold closer to the cost of production

1695
there is no other remedy that can be applied. Certainly, the Government are not the organisation to try to apply one.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I am always a little inhibited in following in debate the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), because we have the authentic voice not only of the Banbury Guardian and the Birmingham Planet, but of a successful capitalist newspaper proprietor. Such is the respect which I retain for the hon. Member that since the Leader of the Opposition referred to him as the reincarnation of Northcliffe and Beaverbrook, it seems to me that, alas, it is only a matter of time before the hon. Member is translated to another place. The process is inevitable. I was greatly interested in what the hon. Member said about the possibility of increasing prices.
I hope that the House will acquit me of any intended discourtesy if I find that the demands of Anglo-Soviet relations are such that I may not be in my place for the whole of the debate. I last spoke in a Press debate on the death of the News Chronicle. It is a cause of some relief that the debate today has not been caused by the need to mourn the death of one more paper or to debate the threatened demise of another.
I say that because, without getting unduly metaphysical, I think that when a newspaper dies, a living organisation dies. It is not only the large and dedicated staff who find themselves out of work and have difficulty in getting employment for their craft—and I know that that happened in the case of the News Chronicle and the Star, though, happily, I believe that most of their employees are now occupied in other directions—but such things are also the end of a tradition. The Star particularly was a campaigning newspaper with a warm heart and a deep sense of idealism. Therefore, when that paper died, a living organisation died as well.
I must, I suppose, declare an interest that at one stage I made a living as a television commentator. Television probably did a great deal to stimulate the B.B.C. into being more active and probably also stimulated the newspapers as well. The importance of the newspapers cannot, however, be overestimated. It
1696
has even been suggested that at times they should be a substitute in the unlikely event of our having an ineffective Opposition. Very often the Government need an effective Opposition and it is felt that if an Opposition should fail at any time in discharging that rôle, the Press can have a useful part to play. I believe, however, that the principle of noninterference, which both the President of the Board of Trade and the Leader of the Opposition have mentioned, is entirely right.
In my view, there have been three interesting developments in the last few weeks. The first was the publication of the Economist Intelligence Unit's Report. Its importance is not what it said, but the mere fact that those things were said, and said publicly. We are a strange race. We do not like to criticise ourselves but, being basically masochistic at heart, we are always very happy to have somebody else, whether a Royal Commission, an Economist report or somebody else, criticising us and then we show how broad-minded we are by accepting the conclusions that are reached about us.
The second development is the discussions which are about to take place between the Newspaper Proprietors Association and the trade unions.
The third matter to which I would draw attention is the experiment in offset process which the Daily Mirror is carrying out in Belfast. It is true that it is not a new process. I think that the hon. Member for Bosworth experimented in it first, but this is the first time that a paper with a national circulation has done so. I was privileged to see the paper being printed in Belfast on Sunday night. This will have, or could have, a dramatic effect upon the content and the economics of newspapers.
Put shortly, the first criticism in the report by the Economist Intelligence Unit was of management—that management had inadequate cost control. That is entirely a matter for the newspapers themselves. It may well be that they will need a Marples in their midst, and perhaps they will take advantage of any available spare source of supply on the labour market for that purpose. Second, it was suggested that, with 700 circulation representatives, newspapers were not getting a proper return. There was not efficiency. In this regard, perhaps they

1697
need to find a Beeching. It was also suggested that, over the next five years, revenue would not keep track with overheads—I thought then of a dim and distant Callaghan in our midst—and, further, that in 1970 a fair number of closures would have to be faced.
The Report mentioned overmanning, inadequate training facilities, and the insecurity felt about the employment of people in the industry. Last but by no means least, there was mention of the need for joint boards, which I as a Liberal, believing in the idea of partnership in industry, needless to say, welcomed enthusiastically.
There is no secret formula for the sale of a successful newspaper. As the hon. Member for Bosworth said, the first requirement is that the public must want to buy it. The second is that the quantity sold or the quality of the paper which is sold must be sufficient to attract an adequate revenue from advertising. There is a great dispute about what the percentage of revenue from advertising should be. In some mass circulation papers it is as low as 35 per cent. In others it is over 50 per cent.
The hon. Member for Bosworth said that the advertising revenue cake would not grow, but I think it right to point out that whereas in 1947, if the evidence of the Statistical Review is right, the total amount spent on advertising in the Press was about £18 million, in 1966 the combined gross total of Press and television had reached the astronomic figure of £286 million, very nearly one-seventh of our total defence bill. In that regard, the newspapers, in my view, have been surprisingly successful in keeping their share of the advertising revenue against the inroads of commercial television.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) will know much more about this, and may have something to say if he is called to speak, but it seems that television is used as the spearhead of the commercial attack and the Press is used as a follow-up. I believe that there will be difficulty here. We shall have colour in television which will present great competition unless or until the web offset process is used extensively by the national newspapers to produce a comparable form of colour advertising.
The pirate broadcasting stations have already shown what inroads local broad-
1698
casting could make, if it were on a commercial basis, into the revenue receipts of newspapers. To that extent, while the advertising cake may become larger, the newspapers will have to continue in battle to maintain their proportion as against television and, perhaps, commercial radio as well. There is, therefore, a great economic challenge to the newspapers.
Now, the trade unions. It is perfectly true—everyone knows it—that there is overmanning. When I was in Belfast last Sunday I happened to pick up a certain lever—I understand that it is called the igranic stop—so that I could stop newspapers coming through a machine and take a paper out to see whether the four-colour printing process had yet been perfected. I was told that had I done that in Fleet Street the whole shop would have stopped at once because a member of one union had to lift the stop and a member of another had to drop it.
The other day, when I was asked to appear on a television programme—a rare and terrifying event for me—there were four representatives of the Press present discussing the industry, and one would have thought that no one had ever heard of restrictive practices, that they did not exist, that no one had ever had any difficulties with overmanning, or anything of that sort. We know, of course, what the position is
It is important that talks are to start between the trade unions and the N.P.A. This shows a real understanding on both sides. Second, there is the acceptance by the trade unions of the experiment which is going on in Belfast at the moment. This is extremely encouraging and shows very great foresight on the part of the trade unions. Although the hon. Member for Bosworth assessed The Guardian's savings at only £160,000, I think it true to say that the greater part of the projected £500,000 saving could not have been made possible were it not for the co-operation of the trade unions in the printing industry.
It is my view, therefore, that whatever may be the present over-manning problems and restrictive practices from the past, which, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) said, were inherited from an unhappy time which, please God, will never return, there is on the part of the trade unions a genuine

1699
acceptance of the need to experiment in modern techniques and realistic manning.
It is interesting that although many of the national newspapers are told that they are in a weak position, and it is said that the lives of four are in jeopardy, the major local newspapers—the Western Mail, the Liverpool Daily Post, the Western Morning News and others—are to a very large extent in a healthy economic position. Certain lessons can be deduced from this. Obviously, the first is that they do not have the same distribution costs. This is important. Second, while they have definite national news interest, they also have considerable local interest for the reader.
This should not be under-estimated as a factor in the saleability of a newspaper. I am sure that it is tremendously important. The completely local newspapers, the weekly newspapers, may be bought by people who want to know who presided at the Women's Institute or where to buy a second-hand sewing machine for 6d. But this is all part of the same thing. Although we are in this country interested in international affairs, we are also intensely regional in our outlook, in the sense that we want to know what is going on and how national economic trends, for example, affect local economic conditions. This is very healthy, and it is something which, I believe, the national newspapers have not yet sufficiently realised.
I come now to the Daily Mirror experiment. This involves an experimental expenditure of about £1 million. What is enormously exciting about it is that, although the typesetting is done in Manchester, the page which is completed is transmitted by photographic process to Belfast. It, needs, therefore, no subsequent typesetting. The photographic print which is received is then put upon an aluminium plate which in turn is put upon the printing machine; it is this which goes through, and the finished product comes out at the other end.
This process means that the Daily Mirror is able not only to produce an Ulster edition but an Eire edition as well. [Interruption.] Yes, both parts of Ireland. I make no comment at the moment about the Border. The Daily Mirror is thus able to cater for regional interests, and it is able also to
1700
cut down on distribution costs. In addition, it has realistic manning and it saves something like 50 per cent. in the labour employed.
One of the great strengths of newspapers in West Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia, with the possible exception of Sweden, is that they are not centralised to the extent that they are in this country. There are great regional newspapers. For example, one will find just as good journalists in Bavaria as in Bonn, the centre of government. Therefore, there is much greater variety.
I hope that one effect of the process will be that every national newspaper which can afford the capital outlay will consider having regional variations, for example, for Scotland, Wales, the Midlands, the North and the West Country. I think that that will have two effects. First, there will be regional variations in advertising, and therefore a completely unmined seam of advertising revenue can be attracted, which is obviously in the financial interests of the newspaper. Secondly, because it can blend local news with the national, it will have an appeal to people living in the region concerned.
There is, for example, a machine which will print three different colours in something like a minute. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bosworth has a machine which will do it even quicker. How long that will exist under his particular wage freeze, I do not know, but I wish him success. I believe that colour can, to use his words, recapture the initiative for the newspaper industry. If we are going to have colour in television it is vital that newspapers should do that.
But I do not believe that the move towards technological change and realistic manning, for closer co-operation between management and trade unions, and more efficient management itself, is a matter for the House. It is a matter for the industry. The industry, which took the initiative in setting up the Press Council—let us not forget that it was from within the industry that the Council was set up—might do much more than it has in having some form of pool for the results of the research of the various newspapers. Enormous sums of money are being spent by various newspapers, and there is very little co-operation between them on research.

1701
There may well be something to be said for a form of centralised research, in which ideas could be pooled and exchanged. It is true that the larger newspapers can afford to absorb increased overheads, and that in turn may lead to the death of smaller newspapers and a further restriction of competition. But I hope that they will be sufficiently enlightened to have some form of centralised research.
The Economist Report referred to inadequacy of training, both in management and trade unions. I hope that there may be discussions on that in the industry, and that the Press will also play a greater part in assisting the international Press, particularly in the developing countries. Lord Thomson's Organisation has a particular claim to credit for what it has done in some emerging countries, particularly in West Africa.
I agree that there is no question of the Government giving positive financial assistance to the newspapers, but I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that through their fiscal policies they have not exactly assisted the Press. But that argument is equally applicable to many other industries, and that is therefore a matter of general and not particular application.
One should remember the enormous revenue derived from Government and local government advertisements. Heaven alone knows what the last three pages of advertisements in the average Sunday paper would carry if it were not for the "Situations Vacant" advertisements. There would be a grave economic effect on the newspapers if the Government were able to offer their wares through other advertising media.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bosworth that there may well be a case for raising the price of the quality newspapers for the simple reason that people cannot afford to be without them. But I think that for the semi-quality newspaper—perhaps that is a term of endearment and not of art—any substantial increase would not produce economic benefit and might do the reverse. I believe that only three or four newspapers could stand an increase in their price without economic damage.
The answer to the problem comes down to two points. First, it depends on whether newspapers are prepared for the
1702
considerable capital outlay involved in all forms of technological experiment. Secondly, it depends upon efficient management and the co-operation of the unions. I do not think that one will get either until there is much closer cooperation between union and management. It also depends on the integrity of the journalist.
I believe that the value of the debate is to show the Press that we, as the House of Commons, do not intend to interfere. We hope that it will be successful but we also hope that it will realise that itseconomic future lies in its own hands. If it is prepared to rise to the challenge, we shall continue to have a free Press. If not, we shall have about one newspaper die every year until there are probably only five left.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: It has been a real pleasure to me to be in the House today to hear the debate. The speeches so far have been sober, well-considered and serious in their content in the main. I am sure that they are intended to benefit the industry in the days ahead.
I want to make a serious speech, to which I have given quite a lot of consideration. That means that I want to refer to my notes a little more than I normally like to do, as a result of spending almost the entire weekend trying to read 150,000 words and absorb their meaning. At times I felt that I wanted some ice-packs around my head.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his recognition this afternoon that the industry itself commissioned the E.I.U. Report, at very heavy cost, through a new joint board which it set up. I doubt whether any other industry would have been prepared to spend £47,000 to commission a self-examination of its organisations. It was commissioned as a private report, but it has been made public, and I have come to the conclusion that that has done no harm. Perhaps it is a very good thing that the Report has been brought to the light of day. I do not think that anyone comes too badly out of it, if we consider it in all its general references. The criticisms are probably well-founded; they give us a basis from which we can go forward.

1703
Although I have no authority to say so, I have reason to believe the E.I.U.'s recommendations, that at some future date they might be asked to offer suggestions as to how their findings might be implemented, may be accepted. We shall have to wait and see whether anything matures along those lines.
Only two matters have been raised on which we have previously heard criticisms from time to time in the House. I hope that towards the end of my speech I may make a reference to over-manning, and perhaps to restrictive practices, although I feel that today is an inappropriate occasion to argue matters of what, I hope, is now the past. There have been occasions in the House when I have felt a little irritated and annoyed at the inferences against the industry, on the grounds of what have been termed restrictive practices. I do not want to say anything about that today that would be in any way provocative, but rather to examine the situation as we find it. I hope that as a result some suggestions may be thought worthy of further consideration by the industry, with a view to maintaining intact all our present national dailies and Sunday newspapers.
So the House of Commons has entered upon a debate on a subject the complexity of which makes the minds of those of us who claim to know something about it boggle in its immensity, and I should be surprised if, at the end of the day, we are not more confused than we were when we began the debate, and even more surprised if perhaps one single suggestion of substantial practical value will have emerged.
I freely confess that my own feeling was one of frustration at not being able to offer to the House today much in the way of constructive suggestions. I have thought about this problem during the whole of the weekend, but how to find some practical suggestion that one can make that might help the industry has been extremely difficult. I have examined with meticulous care and over many hours suggestions from various sources as to how the threatened national dailies and Sundays may be assisted in their struggle for survival. The conclusion I have come to is two-fold.
The first is that, if the public really want a choice of daily newspapers, they
1704
must be prepared to pay the economic price—and in this I gather that I am probably in disagreement with some of my colleagues. I am talking now in terms of all newspapers and am not discriminating, bearing in mind the reactions that will arise. But I repeat that the public must be prepared to pay the economic price and to meet the costs of production.
Secondly, the Government should set an example through their own Departments in the fair distribution of their informative advertisements, by which I mean those advertisements which are required to be put in the Press for many and varied reasons and which it is desired should reach all members of the community, irrespective of which paper they read. I will return to this point later because, under the present circumstances of the purchasing of newspapers, this is where the crunch comes.
Sir J. Rodgers: Surely the advisers to the various Government Departments choose the newspapers which are the most economic to reach the people they are trying to reach.
Mr. Wilkins: I have said that I will come back to this point later. If we were to enter into argument now as to what happens if one does this or that, I am certain that we could spend the whole afternoon arguing the economics of newspapers not only in relation to production costs but in relation to distribution of advertising and revenue from advertising and so on. However, we cannot go into detail, with the best intentions in the world. We can only generalise. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) appreciates full well what I am trying to say, for I know his capacity well.
I commend the E.I.U. Report to the reading of every hon. Member. In Questions in the House concerning the Press, the innuendoes and inferences often directed against the trade unions, although some of them have had substance, have in most cases been shown to be without foundation or at least grossly misleading. The Report is critical of management as it is of the unions. But the commendable thing is that the industry itself commissioned the Report to try to discover how efficiency could be increased—and no other industry in the country has had

1705
either the will or the courage to do just that. The Report was intended to be a critical survey of efficiency and production in the industry. The importance of the Report is that it provides us with an opportunity to pursue the proposals which have been made and this I am able to say the industry is in fact doing.
Provincial newspapers were not examined in the Report, but they have themselves already set up a committee to study productivity and efficiency and that committee is operating already. So we are trying to do something with the provincial newspapers as well as the nationals. I suggest to the House that it is unique for a union to suggest to its employers that such inquiries should be made. The papers concerned are the provincial dailies, the provincial weeklies and the London suburbans. The inquiries are now going ahead.
The House is indebted also to the Cameron Committee for the immense amount of time which it gave and the speed with which it produced its Report following its inquiry into the industry. It conducted the inquiry with speed and urgency and with depth and thoroughness in probing an extremely delicate aspect of the manning of machines arising from the introduction of the modern web offset printing technique.
Arising out of this, I should like to make two observations. The first is that, while the Report is not acceptable—and this has to be understood—to all the unions involved in newspaper and magazine production, it may have provided the bases, or perhaps I may say the guide lines, for future manning arrangements for this extremely modern and almost revolutionary printing process. Secondly, and perhaps more important, I doubt very much whether any other industry has undergone so much rapid and revolutionary change in its production processes as the newspaper industry during my nearly 50 years' connection with it.
I am staggered when people talk about technical and automatic advance in the industry. They have been a continuing process all the years I have had anything to do with newspapers. But the consequences have been causing quite an amount of trouble. One consequence of this tremendous revolution in printing processes is that the lines of demarcation
1706
are inevitable in such circumstances and under present conditions. But today, when we are genuinely and earnestly concerned with the future of the British Press, it would be disastrous were this debate to degenerate into nothing more than an inquiry into the so-called or alleged restrictive practices within the newspaper industry. I want to eschew such a course myself and I hope that I shall not be provoked by challenges from other quarters. If I am, I shall hit back hard.
I say that for two reasons. The first is that I do not want to introduce matters which concern the unions themselves. It is their pigeon to resolve those, and I think that they will. My second reason is that I know that all the unions in the industry are acutely conscious of their part in the supreme endeavours required to save from extinction the four national newspapers which are now said to be in grave financial difficulties. That is understandable. After all, it is the bread and butter of our members, and it must be a matter of serious concern to us as a union.
I have read most of the speeches made on this subject in another place on 25th January. They were, as one would expect, knowledgeable and informative. But, with few exceptions, they were critical without being constructive. That is why I fear that very little of constructive value will come out of this debate. The complexities of the industry are so great, and, in the main, most hon. Members do not understand those complexities. Therefore, I cannot see how it will be possible to make any really constructive suggestions about how relations may be improved.
I cannot imagine that the House of Commons can subscribe to the doctrine that "the intense gloom", as it was called, produced by the publication of the E.I.U. Report should not be taken seriously. That was one of the observations made in another place by a very great friend of mine, with whom I may have to square myself later. I suggest that it is just the reverse. As we have been reminded, the investigation was commissioned and paid for by both sides of the industry, and it cost a tremendous amount of money. I suggest that we should take this Report very seriously. It is not something which can be dismissed out of hand. It has to be really looked at.

1707
I should like to interpose at this point to read from the first paragraph of the conclusions in the E.I.U. Report, which says:
"In these conclusions and comments we itemise the main problems which we believe are facing the industry. As we stated in the Introduction to this Part of our report we do not attempt to suggest solutions to these problems, as to do so would be to go far beyond our brief. We would, however, be pleased to submit suggestions for the consideration of the Joint Board if we are invited to do so."
One is, of course, hoping that this offer of further advice from the E.I.U. will in due course be accepted.
The solutions to the problems, which its investigations into the conduct of the industry have revealed, must be found by the industry itself. That may prove to be a very valuable exercise, but, in the meantime, and before the specialists can get to work, a little first aid may be invaluable. While the industry itself is trying to find solutions to the problems which confront it, the "kiss of life"—to put it colloquially—to help the patients to keep breathing in the meantime may be invaluable.
This is where I wanted to get back to the question of advertising. In one sense this has been done. The Guardian has, for the time being, at any rate, been saved and its management has paid unstinted tribute to the much maligned trade unions involved. Few, if any, people in this country would like to see The Guardian die, and I am numbered among those people. I regard The Guardian as being a fine quality paper, but in the interests of the free Press, and of our democracy, there are other papers, not considered to be in "quality street", which this House would wish to see sustained. There is the Sunday Citizen.
I make no apology for mentioning the Sunday Citizen. It is not a popular paper, but it is the bible of some of its readers. Twice in recent years—I hope the House will take note of this—the trade unions have co-operated with the Sunday Citizen in order to try to preserve its existence. The trade unions are always ready to talk these matters over with managements.
I am not a Communist—most people would consider me to be far removed from supporting that particular political ideology—but one must be impressed
1708
with the loyalty of the readership of the Morning Star, and with the sacrifices which readers of the original Daily Worker, now the Morning Star, have made in order to keep that paper afloat.
It is true that it is not part of the State's duty, in my opinion, at any rate, to subsidise struggling or dying newspapers, but we should at least insist that the State is fair to them. It may be understandable but deplorable that advertising contractors, and probably their clients, boycott the two papers I have mentioned. Advertising has been in the past, and I suppose still is, the life blood of the Press under present economic conditions. It accounted, in the inter-war years, for what one noble Press lord described as "the lush days" of advertising. He said:
"Those were the lush days. Wages and salaries were high, sales were high, advertising abundant. Why not agree to the extra shilling, or the extra five-minute "blow" on the shift? After all, anything is better than a shut down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th January 1967; Vol. 279, c. 544.]
Restrictive practices started, as I said, 40 or 50 years ago, when advertising revenue not only made millionaires, but also encouraged employers, who at that time were ready to pay any money and ready to suggest ways and means whereby the workers could legally claim additional payments. This has grown up in the industry for something over 50 years, and it is only now, when the industry has suffered loss of revenue in different ways, when they have been thrown back on their own resources, compelled to think in terms of running their businesses on economic lines, that they have suddenly started to shout about over-manning restrictive practices, and things of that kind.
Money was free in Fleet Street. It was free to the employers, the owners, and it was made just as free to the workers. We are now faced with a situation where those lush days have gone. T.V. advertising has seen to that.
I said that the Government should be fair to the weaker papers. All Government-sponsored advertising in the national Press should go to the weak as well as to the strong papers. Indeed, in giving it to only the strong, or what we call the mass circulation, papers it is only contributing to the financial strength of those papers and, in effect, assisting them

1709
to kill, to emasculate, or to otherwise destroy their weaker contemporaries. I am not suggesting that this is primarily a means of keeping such papers alive. The readers of papers like that have as much right as the readers of bigger papers to read in the papers of their own choice the pronouncements of Government Departments, which usually convey important information which it is considered that the public ought to know. That should be the basic argument and not that advertising should necessarily be given to them so that these papers can be sustained.
Mr. John Ryan: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that the function of Government advertising is normally extremely selective, that media selection is done on a rigorous basis and that any departure from that would be a subsidy, because it would not be done rationally and advertising would not be concentrated where it should be?
Mr. Wilkins: I have heard this argument before, but I am thinking very much in the terms of the advertising in which the Ministry of Social Security indulges from time to time when it wants to make known 'variations in benefit, or additional benefits or something like that. A great deal of advertising from Government Departments has a specific interest and I can well understand that if the Government are advertising situations in Government Departments of a specialist character, the advertisements will go into specialised channels, certain newspapers or magazines or whatever it might be. But I am thinking in terms of the advertisements such as we had recently from the Ministry of Social Security.
We all know what queries Members of Parliament receive about the rate rebate scheme, for example, and I think that what I have said should apply as much to local authority advertising as to Government advertising. We all know how many people tell us that they have never seen this or that information. They probably have not seen it if they have not read the newspapers in which the advertising has been placed.
Mr. Edelman rose
—
Mr. Wilkins: If I give way, it will only make my speech the longer.
Mr. Edelman: I should be very glad to hear my hon. Friend speak at great length on this subject. He used the word "boycott" as being used by Government Departments in respect of certain newspapers. Would he care to illustrate how that boycott operates and in what respects?
Mr. Wilkins: I was referring to the boycott which I believe to he practised by advertising contractors and, to some extent, by their clients.
Sir J. Rodgers indicated dissent.
Mr. Wilkins: Oh, but it is done.
Sir J. Rodgers: I respect what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the weakness of his argument is that most people take more than one newspaper, so that there is an overlap between newspapers. The job of what he calls the advertising contractor is to find the most economic means of spending the taxpayers' money, to reach the maximum number at the cheapest price.
Mr. Wilkins: I was making only a passing reference to what I said might be described as first-aid measures which could be taken by the Government. I am not asking the Government to subsidise newspapers, or to do anything of the kind. I am saying only that they could assist the weaker papers if only they were fair to them about the advertising which they place with the smaller circulation newspapers. I understand quite well that the national advertisers want to get the maximum benefit from their advertisements, which is why the mass circulation newspapers get the majority of advertising. That is one of the reasons why the News Chronicle went to the wall, and it is one of the reasons why other newspapers are going to the wall unless something is done. Generally speaking, this power resides with the advertising agencies. It resides to some extent with the clients, but the clients are often guided by the information or advice which they get from their agencies.
In other words—and this is the serious aspect of the matter—it is not really the readers who decide whether a newspaper shall die. It is the advertisers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Wilkins: I do not want to be drawn. I am trying to keep myself as cool, calm and collected as I can. I

1711
would probably make a better speech if I allowed myself to be drawn.
This is the crux of the matter. It is the advertisers who decide where their advertisements should go and in effect, perhaps not deliberately—in some cases in the past it was deliberate, but at this time perhaps it is not—they decide whether newspapers shall live or die. That is why the News Chronicle with a circulation of 1,250,000 was dying, and that is why national newspapers with circulations of more than 2 million are now threatened with the possibility that they will die. That is the conclusive evidence to show how it comes about that these newspapers are likely to go out of existence.
I am aware of the suggestions for a levy on a sliding scale on the gross revenue from advertising, the proceeds to be returned in the form of a subsidy to help the smaller circulation newspapers or to help with the price of newsprint. As advertisers decide these matters at present, at first glance—and I emphasise that it is at first glance—this proposal appears to be attractive. Most newspapers depend for anything between 40 per cent. and 80 per cent. of their income on advertising and it may therefore be worth while to examine the possibilities in this proposal, although I confess to some doubts about its practicality.
Another suggestion is for a National Press Corporation. This has some attractions for me, although I must make it absolutely clear that I am not "sold" on the idea of State newspapers. I do not want to see State newspapers. However, the possibilities which I see in this proposal are plant and equipment being made available to smaller newspapers through such a corporation. This is the production corporation, the combined use of which might offer—I do not know—the possibility of economy in production costs. I do not know whether this would be practical as a possible solution, but it might be worth investigation.
I conclude with a reference to the over-manning about which we have heard so much, not only in this debate, but on previous occasions. Those who are highly critical of over-manning are completely unaware of the circumstances which often make it necessary. I said that my connection with newspapers went
1712
back over nearly 50 years. I have worked in provincial newspapers where anyone going into any of the various departments at certain times of the day would immediately come to the conclusion that they were over-manned. It would not have been true. I have already said that in the past the national dailies allowed staff to build up and I am not now dealing with that. A newspaper has to be over-manned, especially if it is in competition.
On a good many days in any year, and particularly on Saturdays, there have been occasions when I have had to work myself to a standstill to cope with the amount of work which had to be produced on edition time. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh, but to deal with six race meetings, all the cricket matches and all the soccer all at the same time in mid-August or late spring is an immense problem, and if hon. Members do not understand that, they do not know what happens in a newspaper office. A man can work and work and work.
There comes a moment when the paper has "gone to bed"—it might be only for an edition at mid-day or in the afternoon—and men stand about and there is what appears to be over-manning. In fact, it is only legitimate staffing of the departments involved.
I am not making excuses for proved over-manning, or what appears to be proved overmanning in the E.I.U. Report. The trade unions in the printing industry, those incorporated within the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation, have already begun to talk to the N.P.A. about over-manning. Restrictive practices and over-manning will be overcome only when the trade unions can resolve their differences and become one union. My own union, the National Graphical Association, has accomplished four voluntary amalgamations within the past few years. It accepts and is working for, one industrial union in the printing trade. This will go a long way towards solving the difficulties which have beset the newspapers of the country during the last few years.
6.0 p.m.
Sir Neill Cooper-Key: I found myself in some disagreement with a great deal of what the hon. Member for

1713
Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) had to say, but I can assure him that he will not find any offensive reference in my remarks to restrictive practices, and I shall strive to make some constructive suggestions. My remarks will be concerned mostly with the E.I.U. Report. Associated Newspapers is mentioned in this survey and, as I am a director of that company, I must declare an interest.
It is somewhat surprising that we should be debating the Press so soon after the matter was raised in another place. Representatives of the Newspaper Proprietors Association and the unions are discussing this report, and it might have been more valuable to the House had we given them an opportunity to announce what action they were proposing to take. Clearly this is a valuable report and it is welcome insofar as it tells us quite a lot about our competitors which hitherto we only suspected.
Apart from the Monopolies Commission Report on The Times—Thomson Organisation merger, we now have four surveys on the Press. There was the Shawcross Report in 1962, the Cameron Report on the introduction of web-offset machines, the National Economic Council Report on the printing industry, and now Lord Devlin's E.I.U. Report. To some extent this Report merely underlines the problems applicable to many other industries, and in some cases to Departments in Whitehall.
We learn of the need to improve management quality, to install more efficient machinery and to save labour costs. On this last point we have received the hardest knocks—justifiably so, in my view. There is no denying that for a nation whose average production per man is so low, the waste of labour in the production of national papers is deplorable, if not scandalous. In 1962 Lord Shawcross's report referred to 34 per cent. over-manning in the industry. There is a much higher figure in the E.I.U. report, but because of the detail it is difficult to get down to the facts. The figure is much nearer 50 per cent.
In our group, the E.I.U. report estimates a possible saving in the production staff alone of £631,000 a year. That is an under-estimation of the figure which we have arrived at. All of us—directors, unions and management—must take some
1714
responsibility for this state of affairs which has developed over the years. What was the state of the industry over those years? It was a period of rising national readership and increasing revenues which could absorb the ever-mounting costs. Unions could scarcely be blamed for taking advantage of the situation which benefited their members. Even the strongest management would have avoided involving its paper in a strike and seeing its circulation scooped up by one of its competitors.
The N.P.A., like any other trade association, is only effective if unanimous. It has always been the hardest thing to get unanimity in the N.P.A.—harder even than to get the unions to abolish restrictive practices. One has only to look at the position in the United States newspaper industry to see the effect of stoppages. We have seen there the consequent closing of world renowned newspapers and resulting wide unemployment. Now we are paying the penalty for those lush years referred to by the hon. Member for Bristol, South.
The E.I.U. report points out only part of the problem. The present Government's economic policy, this long and unprecedented squeeze, has added enormously to the financial problems of the Press. Mention has already been made of the £5 million surcharge on newsprint which the industry has had to carry in the last two years. Lord Devlin's report drew attention to the superfluous staffing in newspaper administration and this is a problem which my company has been studying for many months in a wide programme of reorganisation.
In our case the report specifically refers to an absence of editorial representation on the board. This is miring. When I joined the board, as a non-executive director 23 years ago—and I never was anything else—there were two journalists on the board, one of whom was an editor. There has always been journalistic representation on the Board of Association Newspapers. Today we have two journalists, one of whom is a past chairman of the Press Council. The most important feature of the report to me is the emphasis on urgency and realism. For years there has been too much self-deception in some sections of the industry. This has led to several casualties.

1715
If newspapers are conducted for reasons of prestige without regard to profit, they will die sooner or later according to the length of the proprietor's pocket or the patience of the shareholders. If boards of directors persist in the closed mind that only newspapermen are qualified for management or executive appointments, they will have learned nothing from this Report, which is a sorry disclosure of swollen expenditures and staffs quite unacceptable to managements in other competitive industries. If unions at all levels are not prepared to forget the past and accept the mechanical and technical processes of the 1960s and 1970s, their members, and the sons of their members, will have to look for alternative employment.
Editors and journalists could take a more realistic attitude towards the effect of television and radio on newspaper readers. By the time that they get their mornings newspapers, readers have heard the headline news over the radio and seen the night before the latest topic discussed on television. It is understandable that journalists should get annoyed when they hear people say that it does not matter if a few more newspapers die. I share their annoyance. But I do not think that we should say that it is in the public interest, or in the interest of democracy, that such-and-such a number of newspapers should live. Surely freedom of choice is what democracy is about. If the public wish to withhold their pence from supporting certain newspapers, is not this their democratic privilege?
Mr. Ryan: The hon. Gentleman says that if the public want to pay their pence or withhold their pence from a newspaper, it is satisfactory for that newspaper to go out of business. But would he not agree that newspapers have gone out of business which had extremely large circulations, larger in some cases than comparable newspapers in the rest of Europe, and that the reason that they went out of business was dependence on advertising subsidy? Many of us would not share the hon. Gentleman's complacency.
Sir N. Cooper-Key: There is a variety of reasons why newspapers go out of business. Lack of advertising revenue is one, and production and distribution costs is another. There is the question of the
1716
appeal of journalistic writing. All this must be taken into account. But there is no democratic reason, and certainly no national interest, why a certain number of newspapers should remain. The real threat to democracy is not in the diminishing number of newspapers run by private enterprise. The real threat will come if any Government is tempted to sponsor or subsidise any part of our national Press either directly or indirectly.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that if monopoly led to only one newspaper or two newspapers, that also would be a danger? There is more than one danger in this situation.
Sir N. Cooper-Key: If there were a monopoly such as there is in Russia—
Mr. Gordon Walker: I am talking about this country.
Sir N. Cooper-Key: The answer is this, and it is logical. If there were one newspaper left in this country, it would reflect the changing fashion of people's taste, and the reading public would prefer to spend their money on other interests. They would prefer to listen to the radio, to watch television or to take weekly papers.
Mr. Murray: The hon. Gentleman said that it would be wrong if newspapers received a subsidy directly or indirectly. Would he say whether Associated Newspapers including the Daily Mail, accept the Commonwealth Press Relief Rate Agreement and subsidy?
Sir N. Cooper-Key: I understand that it is general throughout the Press.
Mr. Murray: It is a subsidy.
Sir N. Cooper-Key: If the Government want to help national newspapers, they should return to a policy of sound finance and sane administration. A return to national confidence is all that we need to get the revenue in on the advertising side of the industry.
Mr. Roebuck: If it is the case, as the hon. Gentleman maintains, that the crisis which faces the Press and the reason why newspapers are closing is Government policy, will he explain why a large number of newspapers closed down during the 13 years in which the Conservatives were in power?
Sir N. Cooper-Key: I did not say that. I said that there are certain contributory factors to the economic crisis in the newspaper industry and that the Government, by creating a prosperous climate in the country, could assist in curing it.
Fleet Street is full of rumours, and so is Westminster. Political fortunes vary, and so do those of the newspapers. Like other newspaper offices, our company is in the process of a good shake-up. We have exceptional resources of ability, good will and determination. I say to our friends in the Press that it would be a mistake to under-estimate the potential of our own national dailies.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Edelman: Like the hon. Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key), I have some connection with the Press. I have been a practising journalist for over 25 years. During the whole of that time I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists, and I remain so. Therefore, I have an interest to declare.
Perhaps it is appropriate that the concerns of those who engage in the editorial production of newspapers should be considered. The hon. Member properly referred to the anxieties felt throughout Fleet Street and in Westminster among those concerned with the Press about the possibility of closures and the likelihood, not only that newspapers will close, but that men and women who have devoted their working lives to the Press will find themselves deprived of their livelihood in a contracting industry. Consequently, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is unsuitable for this matter to be discussed in the House of Commons so soon after the debate in the House of Lords. It is a matter to which we should pay our attention.
I have been somewhat surprised at the deference which Fleet Street has shown to the findings in the E.I.U. Report. It is true that the Report was published on behalf of what I might call both sides of the industry. Nevertheless, some of its analyses—it is essentially an analysis rather than a prescription—should be scrutinised with great care before we ask those who produced it to make further recommendations about what should be done. I think that recommendations as to what should be done in respect of the Press, if anything should be done by the
1718
House, should certainly be for our consideration. It is not entirely a technical matter by any means.
The hon. Gentleman referred to overmanning in the industry. It is undoubtedly true that there is an overmanning, which, it has been suggested, adds up in cost to about £4½ million per year. On the other hand, this overmanning is not simply to be found in the machine shops. It is not simply to be found among the journalists. It is over-manning which can be found as much in board rooms. It is over-manning which can be found as much in management. The Report refers to the men who stand idle, the men who stand and wait, the men who have no jobs to do for half of their so-called working time. However, I believe, based on my own observation—I am sure that this is the experience of my hon. Friends who have been active in the newspaper industry—that, if an analysis were made of the time wasted by certain members of management, it would be found that there was at least an equal amount of time spent in waiting and hanging about.
Sir N. Cooper-Key: I referred to the reorganisation which is going on in Fleet Street in every office to reduce the surplus management staffs.
Mr. Edelman: I am glad to hear that from the hon. Gentleman. I hope, when the scrutiny is made, if there is to be retrenchment in the industry, that the burden of that retrenchment will not be laid on the shoulders of those who are working in the industry, but that the scrutiny will be applied to the board rooms and to those who in the past have drawn vast sums from the industry which have not been ploughed back into the industry to make the technological improvements which have been recommended by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
I believe that the Press is an essential part of our democracy. I have no hesitation in repeating that cliché, because it is certain that, if the presumptions of the Executive, which increase in number every week, and the decline of the Legislature in respect of the Executive are to be arrested, then more than ever is it necessary for us to have a strong and varied Press. If we find that organs of opinion which are capable of criticising

1719
the Government and acting as a secondary restraint are closed down, then indeed it will certainly be a bad day for democracy.
We have seen in past years how great newspapers like the News Chronicle and the Daily Herald have died or been submerged. Today the neurosis which is sweeping through Fleet Street is one which is not conditioned by the fact that newspapers today are going through a difficult period because of a contraction of advertising revenue. The neurosis is deep-seated. It goes back to the days when overnight great newspapers, with circulations in some cases of over one million, suddenly found that they had to close down, and men who had been apprentices or who had been trained in the craft of journalism suddenly found that they were deprived of a job and that their families had little to look forward to.
Some proprietors in recent days have been hysterical about these developments, as hysterical perhaps as anybody whose immediate livelihood was at risk. Yet I think that we should rid our minds of sentimentality in approaching this subject. I believe that a newspaper deserves to live only as long as its services are demanded by an adequate public willing to pay for them. I can understand a small newspaper appealing for financial assistance from friends and private bankers. It is reasonable that a campaigning newspaper or journal which is fighting for a cause should turn to its friends and seek assistance.
I have absolutely no sympathy with those who go looking for Government subventions, either as cash payments or in the form of redistributed levies. I see absolutely no reason why there should be a levy, for example, on advertising revenue in order to penalise those whose dynamism and enterprise create the conditions in which it is possible to have a viable and self-supporting Press.
I do not believe in a kept Press, whether the Press is kept by cash payment or by indirect subsidy. Therefore, the problem which we have to consider and which we should consider is how we can have a viable and independent Press. I believe that any other form of
1720
support is neither dignified nor economically justified, nor, above all, politically desirable.
I know that from time to time it has been the custom to compare the newspaper industry with the film industry and to suggest that, just as the film industry has the Eady levy, for example, to support it, so it might be possible to find some solution by which the newspaper industry was sustained by a levy, either on advertising or in some other form. I do not believe that the newspaper industry and its purpose is in any way comparable with the film industry or the purposes for which the film industry exists. The film industry at its best is an art form. More often, it is an entertainment machine. Sometimes, even, it can be a source of foreign currency. The film industry can receive support—Governmental support, support from the Treasury, or from wherever it may be—without losing its particular function in our society.
I believe that the Press is in an entirely different position. Once the Press depends upon Government financial hand-outs it is lost to democracy. It becomes yet another pillar of the new establishment, answerable not to its readers, not even to its advertisers, but to the Ministers of the day.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech on the occasion of the Granada prize distribution, uttered a caveat against any form of Government intervention. If anyone asks why that caveat should be uttered, the answer is perfectly clear. Once there is any kind of subsidy which is capable of being withdrawn, then the Press falls into the hands of the Government of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) referred to subsidised telegraphic rates for the Commonwealth—I believe I am right in saying that that is what he referred to. That is a subsidy, but a comprehensive and general subsidy applicable to all those who are capable of using it is entirely different from subsidies which are offered in a way which might lead to discrimination.
If there are subsidies which are capable of being discriminatory, then the Press is put into the hands of the arbitrary decisions of the Government of the

1721
day. No newspaper is entitled to say, "We are a good newspaper and therefore we have a right to live". I do not believe that that is necessarily so. I do not believe that a newspaper can say, "We are a Liberal newspaper with a long tradition and therefore we have a right to live", any more than a newspaper has a right to say, "We are a Conservative newspaper with a long tradition. Therefore, we, too, have a right to live". A newspaper should justify itself every day. That is why I personally shed no tears at all when The Times was taken over by Lord Thomson.
The Times, a great newspaper, with a long tradition, although a varied tradition, has, I believe, to justify itself, as much as any other newspaper. In the post-war era, The Times has been an admirably well-behaved and highly civilised paper which, unfortunately, did not attract enough readers. Consequently, the newspaper fell at risk. But any middle-aged person will recall the wholly pernicious part played by The Times before the war during the period of appeasement, its cruel indifference to the fate of Czechoslovakia, its sycophancy to Hitler, and the part played when Mr. Dawson himself was an institution.
I recall this potted history of The Times before the war, not in order to decry it as a newspaper, but merely to say that for any newspaper to claim to be an institution and, therefore, by that fact, to have the right to live is something which is invalid. I believe that every newspaper has to justify itself.
Let me turn briefly to the E.I.U. Report. The Unit's terms of reference were to report on the industry, and I think that its comprehensive criticisms of managements and trade unions must carry weight. Undoubtedly, there is overmanning in the industry. That has been referred to already, and it is the responsibility of managements and trade unions to get together to examine the areas indicated by the Unit's Report where it is possible to cut down overmanning and to save money in the interests of those newspapers.
There are also other charges which have to be considered very carefully. There is the charge that men stand about idly and overpaid. Clearly, it is a matter for the unions concerned to discuss those charges—and refute them if they are in-
1722
valid—with managements to see whether the alleged over-payments are an undue burden on the newspapers.
There is another reference to which I might refer, because it was not widely quoted in the general Press. I do so because, in a sense, it is a curiosity. One of the reasons why I do not accept the report as holy writ is that it is alleged that in the machine shops of newspapers there is what is called "over-drinking". The report says:
"We understand that there is less drunkenness in Newspapers than there used to be. This may well be so, but drunkenness was still seen and was such as would never be tolerated in other industries. S.O.G.A.T. chapels in particular talked about the dangerous conditions in which they worked, but we saw the same men performing the dangerous jobs when they had had too much to drink."
In my own personal experience of the newspaper industry, I have not observed any such thing, and I believe that those who are engaged in management in the industry would also have something to say if they saw a drunken man minding a machine. That paragraph introduces a certain scepticism into my own reactions to the Report of the Unit. It raises certain doubts in my mind about whether the Report as a whole should be treated with the deference which it has received, even from the Press itself.
The Unit talks of the wage structure as a jungle. That may be so, but, once again, here is a matter upon which we in this House cannot pronounce. If there are wage complications within the industry, that is a matter which lies to be settled with the common sense of the managements and the trade unions concerned.
Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks with great care and interest. Would he not agree that very much of the same sorts of strictures about overmanning and wastage of labour were made years ago in the Shawcross Report and that, so far, there has been no sign that either unions or managements were prepared to tackle them on a serious level? Why should it be thought that they are prepared to now?
Mr. Edelman: Although the truth may take a long time to penetrate, eventually the moment of penetration arrives. There comes the moment of truth, when people

1723
recognise that they have to examine the charges to see if they are serious and if they are prepared to take whatever action is appropriate. It may be that the moment has come when the newspapers, under the thrusting and merciless drive of those who are seeking to take over more and more newspapers, closing down others on the way, recognise that there is a common interest between those concerned with printing the newspapers, those concerned with writing them, and those concerned with publishing them.
Perhaps the moment has come now, when we are debating the matter, when we are not only concerned with reports of this kind but when more realistically the men and women whose livelihoods are involved are deeply concerned about what is happening.
Although we have been talking about the economic difficulties which beset newspapers, in the long run the important thing, which is relevant to the control of newspapers as well, is the personality of the newspaper. But what is important is the editorial independence which a newspaper has.
The functions of a newspaper, even if they were multiplied and varied, would not be fulfilled unless, within the newspaper itself, there was freedom of expression and the editor himself had the right to make decisions independently and free from the pressures of the financial control.
Today, I do not think that the Press is necessarily in any worse state than it was in the 1920s or 1930s. In many respects, it is very much more independent and, in some ways, even more varied than it was in the 1920s and 1930s. I have spoken before about The Times. In the 1930s, it was owned by a man who was literally mad. He threatened to shoot his doctor and the friends who came to take him home from France—
Mr. Roebuck: If I may assist my hon. Friend, Lord Northcliffe died in 1922.
Mr. Edelman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is what I was trying to indicate. I meant to refer to the 1920s. In the years between, newspapers have often fallen under the control of men whose arbitrariness and wilfulness and whose capacity for interference in the affairs of newspapers was such that, did it exist today, there would be a justified outcry against them.
Mr. Eric Moonman: Is my hon. Friend saying that not only are madmen likely to be among people who own newspapers, but that madmen among Government decision-makers cannot be relied upon? Is he saying that, on the one hand, the arbitrary nature of government cannot be relied upon, and therefore the Government must not support newspapers in any way and, on the other hand, that the same sort of situation can arise with newspapers and their proprietors? If so, that is an extraordinary statement.
Mr. Edelman: For all my hon. Friend's emphasis, I cannot agree with him. What matters ultimately is the working journalist, the editor of a newspaper, and his capacity for asserting the right of a newspaper to express opinions freely. It is he, in his relations with the proprietor, who is the man in charge of the flame of journalism. He has the responsibility. I believe that his task would be infinitely more complicated if, in addition to dealing with his proprietor, he had to deal with a Government who were handing out subsidies and were prepared to withdraw them according to their own arbitrary and wilful decision.
To sum up, I do not believe that any newspaper has the right to live if the public does not want it, but it is the duty both of proprietors and journalists to try to create such newspapers that the public wants them and so that newspapers become viable.
I do not think that the Government should subsidise the Press in any form, directly or indirectly. I believe in efficiency in the industry and the need for management and workers to re-examine the difficulties in what is, after all, their industry. In order to do that, it is necessary to cut out restrictions that hamper production.
Here I would say in passing, referring to the passage which I quoted before from the E.I.U. Report, that the effect of restrictive practices has been much exaggerated in all these discussions, and reaffirm that the Unit's Report says that restrictive practices in themselves would not be enough to cause the collapse of a newspaper. I believe that ultimately there is no formula for success in newspapers other than good editing and good journalism, and I hope that this debate will be a reminder that, for all the streamlining

1725
of techniques, what matters in the long run are the men who run the industry.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Berry: I fully agree with a large part of the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), but I think that he was a little unfair, and that he was rightly corrected by one of his hon. Friends, in his reference to The Times being owned by a madman in the 1920s. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that that was the case throughout that period, instead of making it clear that it was for only a limited period of time that Lord Northcliffe was there, whether he was mad or not.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's reference to the peculiar part of the Report which refers to drunkenness. I have endless recollections of tea and coffee trolleys going up and down the office at inconvenient times, but I do not remember any sign of the other.
I must declare only a very small interest. My major interest in newspapers is in the past, but I worked in a number of offices. Indeed, I worked for a time as a Lobby Correspondent here, and a most enjoyable time it was. As I stood in the Lobby I learned to recognise the expressions on the faces of hon. Members as they came out of the Chamber. I learned to recognise those Members who pretended that they did not want to be approached when they really did, and also those Members of the Labour Party who, coming down from their occasionally hectic meetings, were anxious to give information to the Press, but my memory of my own party's committees since I have been a Member, has been hazy, and I cannot recollect anything about them.
I had hoped a few weeks ago possibly to be able to declare a larger interest than I can at the moment, but I should like to take up one point which was made earlier, namely, that the Monopolies Commission takes a long time to make a report. Having appeared before it twice in the autumn, and having had one or two talks with its extremely able and hardworking secretary, I can appreciate in a way that I would not otherwise have done the tremendous amount of work which is necessary, and what a lengthy job it is to compile all the evidence that is put in its
1726
reports, quite apart from the actual findings.
I particularly enjoyed one day when, it so happened, the Press discovered that certain of my colleagues and I were to be interviewed by the Commission. We were asked to inquire whether we could be photographed within the precincts of the Commission's office. Inquiries were put through, and the answer was that so long as it was in the hall it was all right. By the time we got there some photographs had already been taken. The result was that in at least one national paper there was a photograph, not of us, but of the Monopolies Commission itself in action. I am delighted that it received that publicity, which it fully deserves. I shall not go into detail about its findings.
I think that we all agree that since the war a far greater interest in the Press has been taken by outsiders than ever before, and mention has been rightly made this evening of the lush period which newspapers enjoyed. This goes back very largely to the period after the war when we had newsprint rationing. The rationing continued for many years, which meant that advertisers could not put all the advertisements they wished in papers of their own choosing and had to spread them around. This gave a sort of subsidy to the weaker papers and enabled them to carry on for a longish period without realising how weak they were basically. Then, as newsprint became more and more free, in the sense of being able to buy it, certain papers, both national and local, found their production costs rising and their circulation and advertisement revenue falling.
The same period saw the rise of television as a competitor. This afternoon emphasis has been laid not only on the economic side, from the point of view of commercial television, but also on the editorial side. Sport is perhaps the subject which comes most immediately to mind. We have probably forgotten that it is only during the last 10 or 11 years that B.B.C. sound broadcasts have given the odds of the horses when giving the results of the first three in each race. As the 1950s advanced, newspapers, particularly in the provinces, found it more and more difficult to compete with television as the sporting coverage of both B.B.C. and commercial television became that much stronger.

1727
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) commented on the fact that I was smiling at the point he made about a newspaper office on a Saturday afternoon. I was smiling because I had intended to make the same point as an example of one of the problems facing newspapers today. One of the great joys of newspaper production a few years ago was the Saturday afternoon football paper, when a person tried desperately to get his paper out a few moments earlier than that of his rivals, or just in time to catch the crowds before they went home, not forgetting that he had to show all the results, and a full report of the local match, the racing results, the football league tables, and, probably most important of all, the pools tables. Now, as we know, anybody sitting at home on Saturday afternoon can see all these things on his television set far quicker than a newspaper can get them to him.
The same thing applies to some of our work here. Only a few years ago almost the first opportunity that a member of the public had of knowing what the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement was the quickly produced evening paper. Now, whenever the Chancellor makes a Budget statement—and recently he has been making more than the average one a year—both the B.B.C. and commercial television have studios full of journalists who specialise in economics, and dons and financial experts ready to comment on what the Chancellor has decided to do, long before the papers are out, and that evening the Chancellor gives an interview and there is more expert opinion. The chances of selling extra newspapers the following morning are virtually nil, because people have had a surfeit of what they can learn. Obviously we cannot put the clock back. Many of the reasons why people had to buy newspapers no longer apply.
There is, however, one subject in which there is now much greater interest, namely, the City. There is now much more interest than there used to be in stocks and shares, in unit trusts, and so on, and I shall be very surprised if, during the next weeks and months, we do not see more space given to these in The Times.
What about the Sunday papers? They really have come into their own during
1728
the past few years. One of the most satisfying things which an examination of newspapers reveals is the rise in the circulation of the quality Press. Over the past ten years there has been an increase of 1½ million copies. The Sunday Telegraph, which started only a few years ago, now has a quite reasonable circulation, and the Sunday Times and the Observer are both going steadily ahead.
A few weeks ago I took a personal interest in the award to the Sunday Times, which the Prime Minister presented on behalf of Granada, as the newspaper of the decade. I had a particular interest in that, because more than one-third of that period came under the previous ownership, and it is right to say that in the three years from 1956 to 1959, the period which saw the first separate weekly review section of a Sunday newspaper in this country, the rise in circulation was unique. Since then it has risen steadily and the paper now has another unique feature—or, at least, it was unique when it started—a colour magazine supplement. I hope that "one of the world's great newspapers", as it was called in those days, still merits that description.
Much has been said about restrictive practices by trade unionists. None of us can deny that they exist. The pity is that, as in so many other industries, the reasons for them no longer apply. Once they are there they are difficult to get rid of. None of us would deny that there is overmanning in many newspaper departments. The hon. Member for Bristol, South referred to Saturday afternoons. That is the time when large editions must be brought out in a very short time.
Nobody in the newspaper world would deny that in publishing departments, in particular, far more people are employed than need to be employed. It is easy to say that, but it is not so easy to find a solution, especially at the moment when so many new methods of printing are becoming available and when unemployment is so high. It is not surprising that the unions tends to be suspicious. But I wish that over a long period the various unions had been much more inclined to admit more trainees into membership.
In this debate we must look to the future. The work of the 1961 Press Commission, which led to the setting-up of the joint board and, in its turn, to the

1729
production of the report by the Economist Intelligence Unit, has been of tremendous importance. I hope that some time, arising out of the Report we shall see the emergence of one trade union representing all the present trade unions in the industry. That would be the best possible step forward. This can be achieved in due course, with good will on both sides.
One category of newspaper that I am concerned with is the small weekly. It does not have much money, and in many cases it is without the enterprise or initiative of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who owns a newspaper in Banbury. He has had the chance and has used it very well, but many weekly newspapers throughout the country have not had the opportunities which his newspaper has had. Many of them are being quietly swallowed up by large groups. The Monopolies Commission is not concerned. On the other hand, it is very difficult for such newspapers to carry on with the introduction of web offset, which they cannot afford on their own.
I should like to see a greater joining together of newspapers—not in terms of buying other newspapers up, but of forming groups so that they linked their printing arrangements, and so on. Much could be achieved in that way. Talks which I had in November and December last with some independent newspapers confirm my belief. There might also be some way in which the Government could subsidise these newspapers. It is not easy to see how this can be done, however, and we must make sure that subsidies are not discriminatory. I should like to see a greater interest in this subject on the part of local newspapers.
Since the war we have had two Royal Commissions on the Press: we have had the Prices and Incomes Board's Report, the Cameron Inquiry, the Monopolies Commissions Report, and now the E.I.U. Report. A few days ago there was a debate on the Press in another place. After all this, the time has come for the industry itself to digest all the suggestions put forward and to see whether it can act on those suggestions.
It is easy to pick holes in the E.I.U. Report and to say that one newspaper has more foreign correspondents and reporters than another. That means nothing in itself. On the other hand, we should take note of the emphasis placed
1730
on the need for training both management and trade unionists. The Report's reference to the number of trade unions on the production floor; its description of the whole wage structure as a jungle, with the basic wage bearing no resemblance to the take-home pay—all these are vital factors which, until now, were known to far too few people. Now they have been brought into the open.
Some newspapers may close or amalgamate, but the chances of the weak ones will be all the better as a result of the reports that have been published and the interest raised in the problems of the industry. I hope that after today's debate we can leave the Press to put its house in order in its own way. I suggest that the light of publicity should be darkened while those who are responsible for this great industry are left to tackle its problems. As one who has been brought up in newspapers I confidently believe that this will be done.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Albert Murray: I declare my interest at the outset—not as a newspaper proprietor or a working journalist but as a member of the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades; one of the non-craft members of the printing industry. Not only in this House but in a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Savoy Hotel we have heard references to restrictive practices in the industry. I wish that my right hon. Friend had made his speech in front of a printing audience—to the secretaries of the printing unions.
Some analogies can be drawn between restrictive practices in the printing industry and similar practices in this place. Here we call them time-honoured traditions. We do not have overmanning: we have undermanning. We get counted out. Some people might consider it to be a national scandal that our Legislature can be counted out because we can muster less than 40 Members out of 630.
In the past dozen years the printing industry has had several microscopes brought to bear upon it. There have been two Royal Commissions, the E.I.U. Report, and the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board. Generally speaking, most of these reports say that the unions are not the cause of the trouble. I have found that in this debate I disagree more

1731
with my hon. Friends than I do with hon. Members opposite. Some members of my party will never forgive me for saying that. We have been talking about management-worker relationships. The first time some News Chronicle workers knew that it was not being published the next morning was when they arrived at work. Then people wonder why the workers express their fears, mistrust and suspicions.
On the manning side of the News Chronicle there was an agreement with the management five or six years previous to the close-down. The agreement was negotiated by an independent consultant, of whom the unions said, "We will accept his judgment and arbitration in this matter in respect of the manning of machines." This was done, and we can say that at least in that case the unions were completely blameless.
People have asked what the unions have done in connection with overmanning and restrictive practices. One Scottish Member said that the unions did not seem to be doing anything about these problems. In the Daily Mirror in the past six or seven years the staffing in the machine and publishing rooms has been cut by 1,000. They did that as a result of agreement between the management and the unions. On the basis of trust and security there can be built up a framework of good relationships.
It is all very well for hon. Members to quote this or that report and for members of the Royal Commission under Lord Shawcross to walk around the machine room in a printing works and ask, "Why is that man doing nothing?", but they do not realise the deplorable conditions in which these men must work for 30 or 40 years of their lives. Sometimes the noise is intolerable, almost reaching the pitch of supersonic sound. They must also put up with ink and the paper dust. The E.I.U. Report more or less dismisses all this simply because the men are quite well paid, but consider the social side of their lives that they lose. Men working for the News of the World, Observer or Sunday Times spend 48 or 49 weeks every year without being home on Saturday night, missing the family lives which most other people enjoy.
The men who work in the newspaper industry are away from home for practi-
1732
cally every night of the year, apart from holidays. Many of them begin work at 7.30 p.m. but must leave home at 6 p.m. They probably do not arrive home until 7.30 the following morning. They hardly see their children and while it might be said that they do this from choice—and, to some extent, that is true—we must take account of the conditions in which they work and the part of their lives spent working when other people are enjoying themselves.
I wish that something could be done about another problem facing the Press; that of cheque-book journalism. A young lady named Christine Keeler was able to earn, as a result of a series of articles over two or three weeks, £23,000. It would take one of the members of the printing unions 10 years, working under the conditions I have described and being away from home three or four nights a week, to receive that sort of money. The balance is wrong, and I trust that when considering this matter, hon. Members will consider the expenditure of newspapers on both sides of the scale.
What else have the unions been doing in terms of amalgamation? One would think from some of the comments made in this House in another place that nothing has been done. The printing industry has in the past 12 to 15 years set an example to industry generally by showing what can be done in terms of union-management relations. At the beginning of that period there were 16 unions in the printing industry. Now there are six and there is the possibility of an amalgamation within the next couple of years of two major unions, giving us the almost ideal position of one trade union.
One hon. Member pointed out that Lord Cameron stated in his Report that there should be only one union in the printing industry. My union said that to the Royal Commission in 1961–62. Since then two of the largest unions, the National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants and the National Union of Printing, Bookbinding and Paper Workers, have amalgamated to produce the biggest union. I am not today speaking specifically on behalf of my union, but I assure the House that the printing industry unions generally have made major advances in such things as training men for the future. In the last couple of

1733
years more than 300 men have taken courses in computer appreciation organised by S.O.G.A.T. This shows that these bodies are not lagging behind but are, by their own efforts and without subsidy from the employers, facing the future to ensure that they are up to date, since they realise that changes must come about.
In 1949 the Royal Commission on the Press stated that there was really no danger to the Press. Since then at least four Sunday newspapers have disappeared, along with the News Chronicle and the Star. In this debate pious hopes have been expressed about the future and many hon. Members have said, "Leave the newspaper industry to itself". My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech at the Savoy Hotel that roughly the present number of newspapers was needed. How far will the Government allow the diminution of the Press to go before they make a move?
Make no mistake, Lord Thomson did not merge the Sunday Times and The Times for any high social purpose. He intends them to make money, but the possibility of them making money against The Guardian or the Daily Telegraph must be considered along with the possibility of war being declared among the three of them.
I believe that there should be some Government subsidy and I do not see why there should be anything wrong with this suggestion. There are already Government subsidies for the arts and the theatre and, while some hon. Members want the Royal Shakespeare Company to take off "US", a subsidy is provided, just as it is for music. Despite that, not all of my hon. Friends would expect all of our subsidised orchestras to play the Red Flag at the end of every performance. We also subsidise sport. England recently won the World Cup and the present Government gave £500,000 in subsidy for that. But we do not expect to see five left wingers in the forward line. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is subsidised—[Interruption.]—at least in terms of advertising—or at least the newspaper in which he has an interest is subsidised by A.B.C. Television, the Daily Mirror and Joanna Southcott's box; although I do not expect
1734
my hon. Friend to agree with all the views of those people.
When hon. Members say that to provide a subsidy to the Press would subvert and erode the freedom of the Press, they must consider what freedom newspaper editors have at present. After all, the Daily Mail has lost eight editors since the war. Is that freedom? We tend to under-rate the profession of journalism and the tasks of editors by speaking in the way we do.
The Government already give subsidies by way of advertising. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) intervened earlier to say that it was done on an advertising agency basis. But the Government are not selling detergents, cigarettes or beer. They are notifying people of certain changes of benefits. They are not asking people to buy anything and, as such, everybody should have the opportunity of being so notified.
I put some Questions down last week on this subject. I am not mentioning that merely because the Sunday Citizen did not mention it in the brief which it sent to every hon. Member, but because we should look at some of the expenditure by the Government on advertising. Take the years 1963–64 and 1965–66 and consider how much was spent with various newspapers with varying circulations. The Sunday Mirror, with a circulation of over five million, received £193,000 in 1965–66. The Sunday Times, with a circulation of 1,360,000, received just under £200,000. The poor old Morning Star, with a circulation of 58,000—and possibly more readers—got nothing. I cannot understand this. Whether or not I agree with the political views of the readers of the Morning Star, they have every right to read the advertisements put out by the Government and to be notified about such things as rent legislation, pensions and the virtues of the Armed Forces, even if they will not join the Army—which, being readers of the Morning Star, they would probably not wish to do. Nevertheless they should have some form of notification. The Sunday Citizen, with 221,000 circulation, got £3,590 in 1965–66.
I just cannot understand why we should be working this out on an advertising agency basis. The Government are just as much subsidising by advertising the big circulation newspapers and making

1735
the rich richer and the poor poorer. I would not be against some sort of levy. There are all sorts of ideas being floated. Nor would I be against changes in the advertising policy of the Government.
Mr. Heath: Has the hon. Member worked out which of the newspapers got the highest percentage increase under the present Government compared with the old? I think he will find that it was the Sunday Telegraph, which shows the Tory policies pursued by the present Government.
Mr. Murray: The Daily Express earned nearly double, but its circulation was about static. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who is not short of a copper or two, said that he would not be against putting up the price of newspapers. I want to encourage farm workers and lowly paid manual workers to read The Guardian.
Mr. Roebuck: Why?
Mr. Murray: Who said "Why"? I believe the people of this country should have the widest possible source of information. I believe they should be encouraged to read as many newspapers as possible. Working on the calculation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, this would mean that if a person wanted to be well-informed—and there is no reason why he should not, although he need not be a newspaper proprietor—he would have to pay 14s. or 15s. a week to get fair newspaper coverage. We are trying to spend money on education, but then we are saying to people, "When you have received an education you will be able to buy one newspaper only ", and in some cases that may have to be the cheapest newspaper.
The Government have to look at this problem very seriously. In both Houses so far there has been a weak-kneed approach to the whole business. Why are they afraid of the Press? For all their politics—and we must all agree that most of the Press is geared to the Right-wing—newspapers have not made much difference to the political complexion of this House. We cannot go on saying, "We will have another look at the problem if another newspaper disappears" and then waiting for another to go, and then another.
1736
The E.I.U. says that within the next five years, if nothing is done, four more newspapers will disappear. If we take that to its logical conclusion, in 10 years we shall be left with perhaps only three newspapers. I would not care about the politics of those newspapers, but I care that we should have as much dissemination of news as possible. I hope that tonight the Government will say something about it.
7.15 p.m.
Sir John Rodgers: All of us, on both sides of the House, I am sure welcome this debate on the Press because we realise that the Press nationally and provincially plays a vital part in the life of citizens. For that reason I, and I think all hon. Members, welcome the statement by the President of the Board of Trade announcing his policy of non-interference with the Press. This is vital.
It has been pointed out in most speeches so far that numerous investigations have been made into the Press in the last six or seven years. We have had the Shawcross Royal Commission, the Cameron inquiry, the Monopolies Commission and now the E.I.U. The strange thing is that all have come forward with the same information and have revealed the same malaise which has led to the present situation, yet nothing has been done about it. I am more hopeful now because this last Report, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) said, was a joint effort between the unions and management. Not only did they pay for it themselves, which is very laudable, but they had the courage, although the Report was made for private consumption, to publish it for the whole world to read. This is very encouraging. One can only hope that the parlous and grievous state revealed in all these Reports will be gradually put right.
The first culprit when we look at all these Reports must be seen to be management—weak, inefficient management. That stands out a mile in the whole newspaper world. Managements are primarily at fault. Because of the weakness of management, the unions have been allowed to get away with so much in restrictive practices, demarcation disputes and the rest. I do not blame the

1737
unions, but I blame the managements for not facing earlier the real problem of the newspapers. There is nothing new in the present situation except the fact that the economic policy of the Government has led to a great decrease in advertising expenditure, a catastrophic decrease in the last quarter of 1966.
This suddenly highlighted to the managements of newspapers the fact that something must be done, but the signs were apparent for the last six years. Management has not faced the change brought about by the coming of other media, television, and also perhaps the threat from radio. I have a sneaking feeling that managements have not interfered or tried to bring about agreement with the unions in order to get rid of surplus manpower. No one disputes that £4 million could be saved if over-manning went now, and that is over 50 per cent. I know the economic reasons and I sympathise, but one of the reasons why newspapers have done nothing about it is that they thought that if they gave way to pressure their weaker brethren would be forced to the wall more quickly. That is one of the reasons why the News Chronicle went out. It would have been far better if management and the unions had faced their problems earlier and not allowed this situation to arise.
We have heard today the prognostications of Lord Devlin and many others that in the next three or four years there will possibly be the disappearance of three more national dailies and one more Sunday newspaper. That will not be due to the wicked machinations of Press barons. I remind the House of what Lord Devlin said:
"They will not be swallowed up by tycoons anxious to foist their own brands of politics on increasing masses. There are no such people. The Report destroys utterly the idea that newspapers can be kept alive by antimonopoly legislation."
This is an absolute fact.
If we want proof of the weakness of management we have only to look at the meteoric rise from very humble origins of Lord Thomson. He came into the business, not with the wealth of Croesus but as a small operator, yet by sheer efficiency and application of brain-
1738
power he has made a fortune for himself, and good luck to him. I think he has been a very healthy influence in the British Press world.
Some newspapers—I name the I.P.C. and the Daily Mirror group—are most vociferous in saying, "Let us get rid of restrictive practices", but in spite of the 1,000 which they may have got rid of in the last few months, I could point to departments of that newspaper where there is still enormous inefficient overmanning and lack of use of modern machinery which is available to do the job with far less men. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) knows this as well as I.
Although I know something about this industry, I do not belong to it in any way. It has been fashionable for everybody who has spoken in this debate, except, I think, for the two Front Bench speakers, to declare an interest of some sort—
Mr. Jay: I started the fashion by declaring an interest at the outset.
Mr. Heath: And I got in, too.
Sir J. Rodgers: I had not realised that the Front Benches were so distinguished. I ask their pardon. We have all declared an interest. I have held an N.U.J. card. I have been in the advertising business most of my life. I am a director of one or two cultural magazines and I know something about it from various angles.
It is because I realise the weakness of management of the national Press that I rather resent the attempt by certain hon. Members opposite to present advertisers as the niggers in the woodpile which is not at all true. It may well be that certain newspapers depend far too much for their revenue on advertising, but the fact that the Daily Telegraph depends on advertising for 72 per cent. of its revenue while the Daily Mirror has only 33 per cent. of its revenue from this source is interesting but, in my view, has no significance.
Certain kites have been flown about levies and the hon. Member for Gravesend spoke of the redistribution of the advertising money that is spent by the Government. I say most solemnly, having known quite a lot about this from both sides, that in my opinion an interference with the free flow of advertising

1739
and the availability of free choice for advertisers would, in the end, lead simply to a reduction in the volume of advertising and the state of the Press would be much worse as a result. Furthermore, it would make some newspapers as unsuccessful as their unsuccessful rivals are now. Those that have been successful would become unsuccessful, and this would not in any way help to solve the problems of the weak papers.
I agree very much with the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), who said that the lifeblood of newspapers is journalists. The news and views put forward by journalists are the sinews of the newspaper industry. It is what appears in the editorial columns that attracts readers, keeps them attracted and builds up more and more new readers, which in turn attracts more advertising revenue to reach those people in the most economical way. It is as simple as that.
Although I have been critical about the manpower policy of the Daily Mirror, let me hasten to show how objective my views are by saying that the Daily Mirror is the best edited paper. That is why the best paper is the Daily Mirror. It is, perhaps, one of the best edited papers in the world. It is certainly a superb paper. It is my first reading every day. It is very much to be congratulated on the courage of its editorials and it is getting a little more objective itself. I do not object to the bias. One can always correct that if it has a bias. It is an extremely brilliantly edited and laid-out paper. If other papers were as well edited, they would be out of half of their troubles.
While the essence of the newspaper industry is journalism, nevertheless one of the important other functions of the Press is to provide a market place for goods and services. It is just as important to let people know about new central heating systems or new products which have come on to the market. It is not only essential to our economic health, but it is essential for the ordinary everyday living of people that they should have that information. We do not merely sell beer, cigarettes and the like, as the hon. Member for Gravesend said. In the advertising business, we are as much promoting ideas as we are selling goods. We pick the most economical
1740
media for the presentation of those ideas.
The newspapers play an essential part for thousands of businesses which have to find a way of telling people about their new developments, their new products and the price or distribution arrangements of their goods.
There have been several experiments to introduce newspapers, some by rich millionaires who share the phobia of advertising of certain hon. Members opposite and who have produced newspapers without advertising and have subsidised them heavily. They have always failed, because it has been proved without any doubt that the average man and woman wants news of the market place just as they want the news and views about world and local events. One cannot produce either a magazine or a newspaper devoid of economic views.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-gate (Mr. Berry) expressed the view that The Times would soon be paying more attention to the Stock Exchange and financial houses. I go further and say that since Lord Thomson is a very shrewd man there will be much more in The Times about business as a whole, because business is the concern of about 95 per cent. of the people. For far too long we have failed to glamorise or pay tribute to the ordinary men and women who spend their working lives producing and selling goods. The newspaper has a part to play in that, too.
We have been told that to improve the economic situation of newspapers we should face the issue and raise their price. Here I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Gravesend. When people say this so airily, I wonder whether they have worked out what it would mean if the Sunday Times were to have no advertising revenue. Lord Thomson has estimated that the cost per copy of the paper would be between 2s. and 2s. 6d. It is very nice to talk about paying for the newspapers out of revenue. There may be a case for raising the price by a penny or two, but to get the real economic price of producing the paper cannot be done. To try to do so would be the quickest way to kill most papers.
I am fortified in my belief that the President of the Board of Trade was right in saying that be would pursue a

1741
policy of non-interference and leave it to the newspapers to put their own house in order, because that view was very strongly expressed also by Lord Shaw-cross when the Royal Commission under his chairmanship examined this subject. Research has proved also that political views are not the determining factor in the purchase of a newspaper. If political views were the determining factor, the Daily Herald would still be in existence and the Sun would not be in its present difficulty.
We have an educated electorate which does not wish to read a paper which is necessarily confined to its own narrow views, whether Conservative or Labour. Newspaper editors, too, are beginning to realise this. Advertising has an integral part to play in the newspaper business. It is an essential component of an efficient distributive system, and nothing should be done to advertising to harm this. If it were pursued to that extent, it would be to the detriment of the country.
It is significant that the amount of the gross national product spent on advertising throughout the world is in proportion to the industrial development of countries. That is why America, with a high standard of living, spends more of her gross national product on advertising than we do. We come high in the list and Germany is close to us. The lower a country's standard of living, the less advertising it does.
I come now to a suggestion which I feel that the proprietors should take up, and I put it to those newspaper proprietors who are here. Today, advertisers have many research and management techniques for selecting the papers to fit their prospective audiences. I can only say that the newspapers, particularly in the light of the new competition which they have faced from television and radio, have proved hopelessly inflexible in trying to sell their space. The size, shape and so on of advertising presentation is far too standardised for present-day market demands. I understand that the I.P.A. is shortly to meet the N.P.A. to try to persuade newspaper managements to be much more flexible and to realise that they must change to meet the challenge of the television companies.
The situation is bad in the newspaper industry, but it is not all that bad. I
1742
believe passionately in a free and unfettered Press depending in no way on the Government of the day. A free and unfettered Press is absolutely vital for the continuation of political democracy itself. Our Press is one of the best in the world. We get the best value for money here. It is not for me to say whether this or that newspaper should raise its price. That is for management. But, while newspapers occupy a special place in the life of the citizen, they are also a business.
I remind hon. Members on both sides, particularly hon. Members opposite, that newspapers are a business, whatever else they are, and changes must come about from time to time in the structure of the newspaper industry. To try to frustrate changes would be permanently to damage the operating efficiency of our entire economy. Newspapers cannot be saved if they are inefficient any more than any other industry can be. It is the inefficient that go to the wall, as in anything else. But Lord Thomson has proved that newspapers which serve the community well will survive and flourish, and they will also prove a good investment. There is a place not only for papers with mammoth circulations but for small papers catering for minority interests.
To sum up, I am not depressed about the state of the Press. I believe that, if its management will now start making itself more efficient, if it will have a recruitment and training scheme for new entrants, if will see that it makes use of modern management techniques, if it will start co-operating with the unions to get rid of restrictive practices and featherbedding, if it will jerk up its own views on how to get advertising revenue so that newspapers can compete more fairly with television and other media, there is no need for alarm or despondency.
Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that our newspapers are on the threshold of new, exciting technological changes. If managements will take advantage of these new technological changes and if they can have the co-operation of the unions, the British Press has a fine fair future before it.
7.32 p.m.
Dr. John Dunwoody: I am a little conscious of

1743
rising to speak without being able to declare a special interest. I can claim only to be an avid reader of the Press. Perhaps I may claim to represent the consumer interest which has hardly been expressed so far in the debate. It is with some trepidation that I move into a field in which we have heard of lunatic proprietors, drunken operatives and the rest. I cannot believe that things are quite as bad as they have been painted by some of those who are much more directly involved in the industry than I am.
I shall concern myself not with the provincial Press, the evening newspapers or the local weekly newspapers, but with the national Press because it is the national Press which today faces special problems. In a certain respect our national newspapers are different from all the remainder of the Press in Britain. I am not belittling the regional Press, the evenings or the weeklies, but the problems which that part of the industry has to face are not so acute and are not of the same nature as the problems faced by the national daily and Sunday Press.
I do not regard this as a party political issue, although it is a political issue about which the House should be concerned. I am increasingly disturbed at what I regard as a potentially dangerous situation. There is today a real threat to the survival of many of our national newspapers, and this threat stems largely from the increasing concentration of ownership in the industry and from the economic problems which it faces today. Even in the last few weeks we have seen threats to the survival of The Guardian. We saw the eventual take-over of The Times. In addition, we have had the Report of the Economist Intelligence Unit, which has stimulated much of the discussion which has been going on recently.
But we delude ourselves if we imagine that the problems which we are talking about tonight are of recent origin. Moreover, it is complete nonsense to suggest that they are related to economic policies pursued in the last one, two or three years, whatever we may think of those economic policies.
Sir J. Rodgers: No one would suggest that they are not deep-seated. I said that myself. But the economic problems have highlighted the situation by depressing the advertising revenue of newspapers.
Dr. Dunwoody: I shall take up that point in a few minutes.
Notwithstanding the anxieties about the industry, which have been expressed today and in the past, closures of national daily or Sunday newspapers have taken place at intervals over the years. There were many take-overs before we had the argument about whether The Times should or should not be taken over. There has been increasing competition, particularly from television, and competition not only in the dissemination of news but also in advertising. This also has been with us for a number of years.
Because of the long-standing concern, we have had a succession of reports. There was the Royal Commission of 1949, the Royal Commission of 1961–62, and now the E.I.U. Report. One hardly doubts that if we do nothing about the situation now we shall have a further report or Commission of some sort in a few more years. It is useful, therefore, to look back at some of the observations made by the two Royal Commissions.
Going back to 1949, the Royal Commission said:
"We should deplore any tendency on the part of the larger chains of newspapers to expand",
and in the same Report we read:
"Any further decrease in the number of national newspapers would be a matter for anxiety."
Those were opinions expressed nearly 20 years ago. Turning to the more recent Royal Commission of 1961–62, we were then told:
"It would be better if there were more choice",
and
"Concentration of ownership carries with it the potential danger that variety of opinion may be stifled ".
Yet no action of real significance has been taken by successive Governments. We see no real change at all.
I do not believe that the reason for inaction is disinterest or a failure to realise that a problem exists. The underlying factor is the difficulty and complexity of the problem itself. Obviously, there is no easy quick solution, and anyone who suggests that there is does no service to the cause of a free Press in this country, and he deludes those who work in the industry in whatever capacity.

1745
We have a unique state of affairs in Britain today. We have more newspaper readers compared with total population than any other country. Readership of our national newspapers per 1,000 of popular on is the highest in the world. Together with that, we have a large overall population—50 million or so. This is a very densely populated country with, in spite of the many comments we make in the House, generally very good communications.
All this has meant that in Britain, and in Britain alone as compared with the rest of the world, it has been possible for a highly centralised national Press to be developed, centred on the capital city. Over the years, there has been increasing concentration on London, with newspapers being edited and printed in London and despatched overnight all over the country. Some editions are produced in Manchester and Scotland, of course, but the great emphasis has been on London editorial production and London printing. This emphasis on the capital has been far greater than it has been in any other country.
One consequence of this development has been the production of mass circulation newspapers. The circulation figures of our national daily papers are far in excess of the figures of comparable newspapers anywhere else in the world. It is because of that unusual situation that that very strange economic structure has arisen in the industry over the years. The difficulties of the British national Press are therefore unique. They are difficulties which cannot be shown to exist in other countries to anything like the same extent.
It is in this situation that we find today about half of our national daily papers making a loss; and very much the same sort of situation is found in the Sunday newspapers, of which perhaps just under half are making a loss. Those newspapers are making losses despite what would be considered mass circulations in world, Western European and American terms. Papers like the Sun or the Sunday Telegraph would be regarded as having mass circulations in France, West Germany, Italy, any other European country, or in America. Yet they are almost below the starvation level here.
1746
It is an extraordinary situation that daily newspapers with these mass circulations are being threatened with closures and are making considerable losses at the moment. The E.I.U. Report forecast that in the next five years we would lose four national newspapers—two popular dailies and one quality daily, and one quality Sunday.
One of the most disturbing things about the Report was the way in which all the emphasis was on the possible closures. I could not see a word about new newspapers. Yet, why should we be concerned with the purely restrictive side of things in the industry? I do not wish to get involved in extreme political viewpoints, but it disturbs me that it seems impossible today for anybody to start a new paper in this country. Efforts were made to do so on the extreme Right and extreme Left of the political spectrum, and although the sort of newspapers that might have been produced would not have been to my taste, I regret that it was apparently not possible for anyone to succeed.
We must consider how the situation has arisen and why. I hope that I have outlined why the industry is very different from any other. The British national newspaper industry is not only different from the newspaper industry in other parts of the world, but is very different from other industries in this country. One talks of success and failure and those words have been used in today's debate. But the criteria of success and failure in the industry are so totally different from what they are in every other industry in the country that I find it difficult to use the words. Indeed, some of the most successful newspapers to my mind are among those whose chances of survival seem most remote.
I now wish to turn to the economic side, because it is there, and particularly in the distortion of income in the industry, that many of the problems arise. The problem is not to such a great extent, as one hon. Member tried to suggest, a failure to produce a product of adequate quality. It is not a failure to sell newspapers or even to take into account the changing demands of the community and the consumer. Other factors which are often beyond the control of those who guide the destinies of particular newspapers result in failure. I am concerned about this because selling newspapers is not the

1747
same as selling detergents. Producing newspapers is not like producing motorcars. The industry is different and the Government have a duty to deal with it in a way different from that in which they deal with other industries facing similar problems.
The income of the newspaper industry is dangerously distorted by over-dependence on advertising revenue. We have heard how the quality newspapers derive more than 70 per cent. of their income from advertising revenue, and even the "populars" derive about 40 per cent., a fantastically high proportion which makes the newspapers exceedingly vulnerable to any change in advertising expenditure for any reason. The question of an economic crisis has been mentioned. The slightest suggestion of economic crisis will mean a catastrophic drop in advertising revenue for newspapers on the breadline, because when there is a cut in advertising expenditure it is not spread evenly through the newspaper world; it affects the less successful, smaller circulation newspapers. It is not the giants which feel the squeeze when there is economic crisis, but newspapers on the borderline.
The effect of commercial television is felt in the same way. I was concerned that the Leader of the Opposition spoke so glowingly about local commercial radio, because I doubt whether many people in the industry would welcome it. The inordinate effect of very small changes in advertising expenditure underlines the vulnerability of the industry.
The other side of the coin is that too little of a newspaper's income comes from the consumer. It is not popular or desirable these days to talk about raising prices, but I must be blunt about the amount we pay for newspapers. What we pay for a daily newspaper makes it the best buy in the world. At the moment, 4d. is the price of a newspaper with a very large number of pages giving wide political, social and other coverage. In Western Europe, America, or any other comparable country, one finds that the consumer must pay a great deal more.
I do not want to bore the House by quoting a large number of examples, but I have been unable to find any newspaper that is "national" in our sense that does not charge at least 50 per cent. more than our cheaper newspapers. We shall have
1748
to prepare ourselves to pay more for our newspapers. It is right and proper that we should do so in the future.
We should also consider whether the price structure, the cost we must pay as consumers, is too rigid. I know that there are differences between newspapers costing 4d., 5d. and 6d., but generally we pay 4d. for a daily paper and 6d. for a Sunday paper. I am not convinced that that is necessarily right and proper, and that there should not be a greater variation in the amounts we pay for our papers. That is done without question with magazines, but the difficulty at the moment is that no newspaper dares change the amount it charges the consumer, because it fears that a drop in circulation will result in a catastrophic drop in advertising revenue, which could be the end of the newspaper.
That is an unfortunate and difficult dilemma, but Government action of the right sort could do something to solve it. If the industry felt that there was some sort of lifeline, some sort of net, so that a paper which had the courage to charge more to the consumer could do it without sealing its own death warrant, a bit more economic sense would be introduced into that part of the newspaper world. The danger of circulation loss resulting from the price going up is somewhat exaggerated. Small increases in the cost of newspapers would be accepted when the consumer felt that they were worth while and produced a better product.
A great deal as been said in the debate understandably about the cost of production. The emphasis has been laid time and time again on the E.I.U. Report's comments on poor management and out-dated union practices. I do not want to go into them in great detail, but I believe that there is a tendency to overemphasise those problems.
I was interested to see that the Report said that:
"Restrictive practices are not as bad as is generally believed."
and that they
"do not materially affect final success or failure."
That is not to say that there should not be a change in many of the practices seen in the newspaper world. Management could certainly improve to a considerable extent, and on the trade union side it

1749
is necessary to solve the problems of over-manning, of the difficulties of people in getting into the industry, and of adapting to the modern techniques which will come in more and more rapidly in the years ahead.
In addition, the relationship between management and trade unionists is not in the main as happy or satisfactory as it should be. When talking about that relationship, let us not talk just about the two sides. There is a third side—the journalist. One sometimes tends to forget that side of the industry, particularly in times of crisis like this. Very often it is the journalist, rather than the management or the trade union side, on whom most of the pressures are exerted when newspapers face economic storms.
It tends to be the journalists who are given the sack at the drop of a hat and, indeed, the higher up the scale the greater seems to be the risk. Some of the posts seem to change as rapidly as football league matches. That part of the industry is perhaps more vulnerable than any other. The journalists often have to work long hours and perhaps they have not the protection that the managements or the trade unions enjoy.
The question is what action, if any, can the Government take? I am not prepared to accept—and it would be wrong to do so—the present situation. We cannot just go on as we have done over the last 15 or 20 years. I am certain that, if action is not taken in the reasonably near future, it will be forced upon us in the more distant future. If we are to take action, we should think now about what it should be and start to take it as soon as possible.
Obviously, we should encourage the industry itself—the more we can do that the better—to put its own house in order. One feature of the Report is that it came about as a result of the initiative of the industry, including both sides. That is a good sign that augurs well for the future. But even when many of the things it says are wrong are put right, we shall face the same sort of problems as today. We have to look to more positive measures.
The difficulty is to find something acceptable and compatible with a free Press. All sorts of things have been suggested, including various forms of taxa-
1750
tion and restrictive measures, and a legal limit on advertising. I doubt whether this would work, or help the sort of newspapers that a great number of us in this House would like. Another suggestion is for some sort of differential taxation on advertising or on advertising over a certain limit. This would involve such a vast bureaucratic machinery that it would not be reasonable.
The question of Government advertising has also been raised. I cannot regard, and it would be wrong for the Government to regard, Government advertising as a means of giving hidden subsidies, but I ask the Government to look at their advertising policy because I am not certain that the commercial criteria by which they determine which newspapers to use are always right. They could spread much of their advertising more widely while still considering the purely commercial criteria.
Sir Edward Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is making an exceptionally interesting speech. Would he apply his idea not only to newspapers but also to one or two of the smaller weeklies as it were, which have to meet particular competition from the quality Sunday newspapers?
Dr. Dunwoody: I would accept this as far as Government advertising is concerned. There is a tendency sometimes to concentrate too much on circulation figures and not perhaps to consider sufficiently the type of people a newspaper or magazine reaches. This is the sort of criterion that should be taken into consideration.
A suggestion has also been made for some sort of publicly-owned press, some means by which the Government could go into that part of the industry. I am not happy about that. It would put the Government in an incredibly strong position vis-à-vis the Press and it would result in some restrictions on the freedom of the Press. This is the potential conflict all the time. All forms of Government subsidy are alleged and seen by some people to be a restriction of the freedom of the Press.
Then there is the question of levies of one sort or another. I ask the Government to look seriously at this because I believe there are possibilities here. I

1751
think that we have to accept that it would be the consumer eventually who would have to pay the levy, which would then be redistributed within the industry in order to provide the sort of assistance that would be considered desirable both socially and from the point of view of the consumer.
The decision as to how redistribution should take place would have to be taken by an independent group on which the industry itself—management, journalists and unions—and the consumer would be represented. Such groups are used in many other industries. It would not be impossible in the newspaper industry, although the difficulties are immense.
The objections to this sort of levy idea are primarily practical and are not objections in principle. We accept Government support for the Arts and the universities but no one suggests that this involves any damage to their freedom. The Government have a duty to look seriously at this suggestion. It is not their duty to protect the Press but it is their duty to safeguard a sufficient variety of channels of information to ensure freedom of the Press.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The more I listened to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) the finer I thought the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and the analysis which he made. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in the refinements of the busy-bodyism which he was advocating and pick instead on the last words he used—"freedom of the Press".
I have been interested and concerned to see that throughout the debate in which freedom must have been the underlying interest of all right hon. and hon. Members, nobody has referred to a feature in contemporary journalism which is causing more anxiety to practising journalists—of whom I am one—than any other single feature. Incidentally, when I say that I am a journalist, I see no need to declare an interest. I have always understood it to be the case that hon. Members declare an interest in the sense of having a direct financial interest in the outcome of the debate, in that it could actually make money for them. I
1752
have understood that people engaged in an occupation have never had to declare their interest in debates concerning it.
The feature I want to refer to is the law of libel, which was described most recently by Mr. Paul Johnson—no friend of the Conservative Party—who wrote a penetrating and disturbing article in the Sunday Telegraph. He referred to the complex and obscure state of the law of libel describing it as a
"rich mine for gold-diggers."
He said that, as an editor himself, he found it a restraint upon his duty to tell the truth. He added that, as an editor, he was sometimes obliged to suppress what he believed to be the truth, although he might know something to be so and have evidence of its truth. But then he considers the uncertainty of the law of libel and the extraordinary way in which costs are awarded by juries against newspapers. I think this is because the Press is, like this House, a public scapegoat. People dislike it on the whole, although they depend upon it.
When Mr. Johnson considered the attitude of juries in awarding damages against newspapers, his instinct, he said, was to let the story go and the truth be undisclosed. He added that justice was usually the last thing to emerge and often truth was the first victim. He referred to the hostility of the public to the Press and said that he thought it derived from the resentment of the public that the Press was inclined to intrude upon the privacy of individuals. This is something that the House, in considering the health of the Press, should pay particular regard to.
I think that the privacy difficulty could be overcome by legislation. The Press would then be protected against its own excesses and thereby against much of the hostility that it engenders in the public, and the excessive protection which the public receives in the present state of the law of libel would no longer be called for and no longer be justifiable. It would not be in order for me to make any precise legislative proposals in a debate on the Motion "That this House do now adjourn". I think I am correct in saying that. I might obliquely say that the fundamental point which needs to be covered in amending the law of libel, the Defamation Act, 1952, is to make the award of damages the function of the

1753
judge and not of the jury, and to require the amount of damages to be directly and demonstrably related to the damage to which the plaintiff can show himself to have suffered.
I believe that, from my own experience, this would relieve the kind of tension under which the Press labours in the present state of the law of libel. I have myself had a vivid and sickening example of the way in which truth and justice can be perverted by the operation of the law of libel in its present form. My wife is an author and journalist, and was also a member of the London County Council. She wrote an article criticising the policy of the London County Council, and Left-wing elements of the council's staff association induced 134 members of a department to bring an action for libel on the ground that the criticism of the policy of the council constituted defamation of the officers whose duty it was to carry it out.
Counsel advised that in view of the uncertain state of the law, the uncertainty of the outcome of any action, and the propensity of juries to award colossal damages against newspapers—they had just awarded £250,000 in the Lewis case—it would be better for the newspaper to settle, to pay the damages of £2,000 for which the department asked; that it would be better to make a grovelling and prevaricating statement in court which totally misrepresented the motive, intention and truth of the matter, better to do all these things than to try to defend the right and the truth. The newspaper had the decision; the newspaper decided to settle, and the author's case was thereby hopelessly compromised.
I thought that this was a terrible thing. I felt that a newspaper had been silenced. I felt that a writer had been silenced, in a perfectly honourable and just criticism on a matter of public interest and public policy, and that a fine had been sought to be imposed upon a person doing her public duty as she was entitled to do in the work of her profession, just as though she had been guilty of some grossly wicked crime. There are few crimes that I know of where people emerge with fines of £2,000, which, in many cases, might cripple a writer. The House should consider abuses of this kind in the law of libel if it is truly concerned with the health of the Press in this country.
1754
I should like to refer briefly with commendation to the President of the Board of Trade who opened for the Government. I thought that he came to the right conclusion. I thought that for once his heart was in the right place. I am sure that he will be as successful in keeping his supporters in their places as is his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in keeping the Vietcong lobby in their places. I am quite sure that we shall not hear anything seriously advocated in favour of subsidies or grants for the Press. [An HON. MEMBER: "How awful."] The hon. Member who made that comment has a different opinion from that of his right hon. Friend. I am glad that his right hon. Friend is on the Front Bench and that the hon. Gentleman who is impotently saying "How awful" is on the back bench. I think it would be an awful thing if the Government were tempted to try to mitigate the rigours and difficulties of the Press by giving any kind of assistance whatsoever.
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right: the survival of a newspaper depends upon its commercial success. There should be, and there will be, no rescue by the Government, and no Government aid. My only moment of anxiety was when the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), who is now disappearing from the House, asked a hypothetical question about what the Government's attitude would be if there were still more papers folding up. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any unequivocal answer to that. I hope that the Government Front Bench will stick to their guns and will keep the Government's nose right out of the newspaper business for ever. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who made a sincere and helpful speech, to say that advertisers decide which newspapers shall die. Of course, in a sense, this is the corollary of saying that newspapers must survive by virtue of their commercial success. But, actually, it is not the advertisers who decide.
It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) who said, "Let us kill the News Chronicle". It was not the advertisers who decided that. It is the public who decide in what quantities they will buy a newspaper and who, therefore, influence the advertisers, in

1755
their proper duty to serve the interests of their clients, to decide where they shall advertise. It is the number of people who decide to buy a particular newspaper and thereby decide its fate who influence advertisers and are influenced, in their turn, by the skill with which the editors, the staff, the proprietors and management produce that newspaper.
Mr. David Marquand: It seems a quite extraordinary proposition, when over one million people were buying the News Chronicle every day, that it should then be possible to argue that in some sense people did not want the News Chronicle, and it is therefore right that the News Chronicle should fold up.
Mr. Iremonger: It may be "extraordinary", if the hon. Member likes to apply that word to it, but it happened. It was not absolutely without justice, because the fact is that more people wanted to buy another paper; and in the rough and cruel justice of the market place—which is less rough and cruel than the justice one gets from a monopolistic Government paying subsidies and then deciding who shall run the newspapers—theirs was the final decision. It was a good newspaper, a Liberal newspaper, but it was not good enough to survive. It was not the advertisers who decided that. It was the extra people to the million readers who did buy it who decided that the paper should die.
That is extraordinary, perhaps, but many manifestations of human nature are extraordinary. I have often regretted many of them myself. I think there is an extraordinary lack of recognition of my unique virtues, but we have to become reconciled to these things. On the whole, I would rather have the injustice of a free society, than have the injustices of the kind of society which, with the best will in the world, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne is drifting into by saying, "Let us have an independent committee; of course, it will not influence editorial policy, but it ought to decide which paper should live and which die". I would have absolutely nothing of it whatsoever. I am a Conservative and the inheritor of the great Liberal tradition of Western civilisation. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If I were not the inheritor of the Liberal tradition of Western civilisation, my party would not be sitting on
1756
these benches in such great numbers, and if that tradition had not been betrayed by hon. Members below the Gangway, who are never here, they would be here in greater numbers.
Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Gentleman is the inheritor of the great Whig tradition and not the Liberal tradition.
Mr. Iremonger: The right hon. Gentleman is a former history don of the other house, Christ Church. I sense a temptation here to enter into a fascinating evening of historical debate, but I will resist the temptation.
Mr. Roebuck: Whig.
Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) must not provoke me. I can prove to him that I am not the inheritor of the Whig tradition. I believe that my great-great-great-great-grandfather once stood for Parliament as a Whig, but that was only to keep the seat warm for his nephew who was a Whig. My great-great-great-great-grandfather was a Tory; and that is far too tenuous a connection for me to have the Whig heritage hung around my neck, and I will not have it.
However, I must not be diverted indefinitely, because there are many of my hon. Friends on these benches here whom I would not want to prevent from taking part in this debate. The thought that I might prevent more than one or two hon. Members opposite from getting into the debate would be intolerable to me, and so I must hasten and not detain the House.
The root of the matter is that newspapers are commercial enterprises. They depend upon revenue; revenue depends upon advertising; advertising depends upon circulation; circulation depends upon the appeal of the newspaper to those who are to buy it; the appeal of the newspaper depends upon the way in which it presents whatever the editor sees fit to put into it.
I think that it was the President of the Board of Trade who was marvelling, who said that it was always rather surprising—and I think that he took some joy in the fact—that we had a capitalist Press which, on the whole, supported a Socialist Government. It is not surprising at all.
Mr. Gordon Walker: It was not my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Iremonger: Whoever it was who said it, it was not surprising.
In connection with what I was saying about the appeal of the newspaper being what sells it, the political complexion of a newspaper has practically nothing to do with its saleability. Very few people, only a few cranks like hon. Members, are in the least interested in the political persuasion of newspapers. Most people do not read the politics in the newspapers. I occasionally see in my local newspaper, between the small-ads and the sport, a slight reference to me, usually with my name wrongly spelt, and I work myself up into a frenzy of excitement, either in indignation or enthusiasm, saying, "Here we are making huge political progress" or "Here we are being dealt a devastating political blow", all because some Left-wing sub-editor has put in a derisory report about me speaking to a Young Conservative meeting. I am never mentioned when I speak in the House of course, but if the Liberal candidate sneezes in the constituency, it is on the front page.
But my interest in all this is totally misplaced. If any of my constituents see "M.P." in a headline, they skip it. If constituents see anything about Liberal, Conservative, Socialist or Labour, they do not read it, for most people are just not interested in politics. Therefore, it does not matter if the editors of journals, or contributors to them, are sympathetic to the Labour Party, contrary to the persuasion of most of their readers. Their readers do not read those bits.
It is not unnatural that many journalists should be Left-wing. I have always felt that almost by definition highly articulate and literate people are neurotic. I think being articulate and literate is a symptom of neurosis. [HON. MEMBERS: "And you?"] I agree. My literacy and my articulateness occasion me acute hypochondriac anxiety. If I were one of those extrovert people who never speak in anything but words of four letters, I would be much better adjusted and far less often misunderstood.
Mr. Moonman: I wonder whether we can consider the health of the British Press rather than the health of the hon.
1758
Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger)
Mr. Iremonger: It is the health of the British Press. The question is whether it is a matter of concern that the British Press, in promoting the success of the commercial enterprise upon which it depends, is jeopardised by the rather eccentric Left-wing views of many people who write for it. That is the thread of the argument which the hon. Member has lost. No doubt, he is more interested in the personal footnotes, but that was not the main burden of what I was saying.
I was saying that we need not bother about the fact that most newspapers are more Left-wing than they would be if they considered on which side their bread was buttered, because they are run by literate and articulate people, many of them interested in politics, which itself is a neurotic symptom. On the whole, they ought to be, and long may they remain so, uncommitted, highly critical, rather annoying-minded people, and they are very valuable indeed. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and I should be criticised by unhelpful people. It does us good. I glory in the curious anomaly of the articulateness and literacy and neuroticism of political journalists.
But all this goes back to the fundamental proposition which the right hon. Gentleman recognised—that the health of a free Press in a free society depends on the health of the capitalist system. He did not know the trap into which he was falling, but that was the logical conclusion of what he said. It may not be ideal that the Press should have to stand on its own feet on commercial terms in a commercial world, but if that is not ideal, the abuses to which it gives rise are at least mitigated by the rigours and rivalry of competition; and on the whole I believe that, in the long run, in a free society, in this country, good will drive out evil.
Those are the terms on which I am prepared to accept freedom, which may often bring a bitter harvest in the short-run to those who depend on the Press and to the Press itself. But I am certain that, whatever the evils may be in a free Press in a competitive system, they are nothing as compared with the evils which flow from a society in which there

1759
is a Pravda or "The Thoughts of Chairman Mao". [HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Conservative Weekly News-letter."] Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to say that. I think that the Conservative Newsletter has certain merits, but if there were any question of that being the Government-subsidised only newspaper I would be absolutely against it.
I therefore say that the evils which flow from a free enterprise commercial society with a free Press in which some papers go to the wall are not so bad as those evils which flow from the remedies of those who want to apply Government aid and Government subsidies. Therefore, I conclude by saying that personally I feel that the true heart of the matter was reached by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) who said that the Press would find its own level, that it would not be driven out of the service of democracy. I believe that, in whatever form, a British Press and a great British Press will survive, because there will always be people in this country who need and demand in large numbers to have in written form a statement of news and opinions upon which they can rely and upon which they can differ and which they can abandon if they like, choosing another if they prefer.
Therefore, with the single great exception of my profound concern for and disgust with the present state of the law of libel, I am not so moved by anger as many hon. Members who have reacted, largely because another place got in first to the report of the Economist Intelligence Unit on the state of the Press.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. John Ryan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) will excuse me if I do not follow him in the rather threadbare and fantastic arguments which he brought forth and which, if I may say so with respect, rather lowered the tone of the debate, which up to then had been a sensible and proper one. I was very interested in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), because he made points in the debate which had not been made until then and which were pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody).
1760
He particularly departed from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) which would have done credit to Adam Smith, so touching was his belief that if the present situation in the Press was allowed to continue unfettered, untrammelled by any sort of Government action, in some sense as a by-product of this, the common good or the good of the greater need of society would emerge. This is an incorrect view in terms of the present situation.
I want to examine briefly some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend. He read a great deal of data indicating the level of Government advertising in certain sections of the Press and suggested that the Government should redistribute advertising as a form of subsidy to sections of the Press which were not getting what he considered to be their share of Government advertising. This is a view which I thoroughly reject and it would be an incorrect way to redistribute any subsidy. I do not disagree with subsidy, but this is a hopeless way to do it, through Government advertising, because Government advertising, like any other advertising, should have one function and that is to be as efficient as possible within the context of an agreed budget and to do a job of total efficiency. It would be incorrect for the Government to subsidise in this manner, and if we departed from rigorous principles in placing advertisements, it would be a form of subsidy, but it would be hidden, and it would be difficult to say what the subsidy was, and to criticise the direction in which it was flowing.
It would not be a rational subsidy and if we are in some way to soften the force of commercialism on the Press, to do it through Government advertising, through such diffuse Departments as the C.O.I. and other agencies, is the wrong way. The other interesting point which my hon. Friend made arose when he said that he felt he would like to see more people reading the quality Press and would like to see the quality Press available to the general public at a fairly low rate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that the Press in this country is the cheapest in Europe in terms of the number of pages and the coverage for the cost. But it would be a dangerous thing to argue that, as society changes and there are wider

1761
educational opportunities, an expression of this should be a shift in the circulation of newspapers away from popular newspapers to what are called the "heavy" newspapers.
This is not necessarily an indication that something is happening within society. An even more valid indication is when newspapers change, because development in society and in newspapers is an interaction, and the newspaper cannot be too far in advance of its readers nor can it lag behind them. I would refer hon. Members to the excellent Granada Northern Lectures made last autumn by Mr. Cecil King, when he demonstrated clearly that the Daily Mirror of 1967 would be a different Daily Mirror from that of 1957 and 1947, and within the context of a successful popular newspaper there is a more serious coverage, about the City, unit trusts, and foreign affairs than was ever conceivable before in a popular newspaper. This is happening now.
Some of my colleagues may suffer from Fabian hang-overs in that they believe that the opposite of bad popular journalism is "heavy" journalism. It is not, it is good popular journalism, and there is great scope in the British Press for this. Reference has been made on this side of the House to a form of subsidy based upon a levy upon advertising. This is impracticable, and would lead to disastrous consequences for the Press. If we look back at the 1962 Royal Commission we find that the proportion of the revenue of newspapers derived from advertising and circulation varies enormously. We find that the more popular the newspaper, the bigger the circulation, and the less dependent it is upon advertising.
From memory, I think that the People and the News of the World had something like 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of their income coming from advertising, but towards the top end, the heavy end of the scale, the Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Times, the ratio rose to as much as 75 per cent. of their revenue coming from advertising. In that context, what is the effect of any limitation upon the volume of revenue to be derived from advertising? If the Government proposed a levy on any revenue in excess of 50 per cent. of one's revenue from advertising, the papers
1762
which would suffer most are those at the top end of the scale, and those which would suffer less are those with the widest circulations.
It is not the function of the Government to postulate what people should read; it is the function of the Government to provide choice, and I regret that in his speech my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade seemed to think that the Government had no responsibility upon this basis, or any responsibility upon which he is prepared to act. I am not criticising the popular Press, I am saying that it would be undesirable if the heavy newspapers were penalised because of this advertising levy. It would be undesirable for two reasons. First, there would be a tendency for the advertising department of a newspaper to take it fairly easy once it had reached 45 per cent. to 48 per cent. of its income over a year from advertising revenue, and this would not add to greater efficiency nor would it be justifiable in terms of the E.I.U. Report.
The other possible consequence of the levy would be that the heavy newspapers would dilute their contents in order to widen their circulation base. All newspapers want a wider circulation; they want a certain type of bigger circulation, and they get it by different methods. Some plan ahead, some plan changes of staff, changes in the idiom, which will attract younger readers or readers of a certain type and social grouping. It would be sad if the quality of the heavy newspapers was diluted in order to obtain revenue from circulation at the expense of advertising revenue. It is a fairly naïve view to think that in some sense the money spent on Press advertising, about £110 million a year, would continue at this level if restrictions were placed upon the free laws of commerce. An advertiser does not advertise in a certain newspaper in isolation. He chooses not just among competing newspapers but he has to consider whether to advertise on cinema, television, posters or whether to advertise at all. Sometimes he can choose other advertising schemes, direct mail, merchandising schemes and so on. The decision to advertise is not taken relatively, but because he can see an absolute level of efficiency for his advertising, because of the buyer which he can see in a newspaper.

1763
If there were restrictions upon the quota of advertising which any newspaper can take—in the same way as after the war there was a necesary restriction because of a newsprint shortage, which artificially stimulated the advertising revenue of papers which are now more marginal in advertising terms—the resulting redistribution would either be very marginal or if the restrictions were such that the redistribution would have to be quite severe, then it is possible that the total amount of money spent on Press advertising would diminish. I know that we are not in an ideal situation, but it would be to the disadvantage of the Press if this sum of about £110 million were reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Cambome said that he thought that there was no difficulty in principle about a levy but that the difficulty was one of practicality. I disagree with him. I am against the levy in principle. I agreed with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade when he said that the newspaper industry was unlike other industries with which the Board of Trade had to deal. Like him, I regard a newspaper as being different from a tin of beans, a motor car or a washing machine or any other product. It is a living organism and vital for the good of society. It should not be treated as though it were a manufactured product.
If one sees a newspaper as something more like a theatre than a tin of beans, is it not ludicrous that failing theatres are not being subsidised from the profits of the successful theatres? Newspapers do not exist in society in isolation. It is ludicrous to penalise the efficient, imaginative and good in order to subsidise those which run into difficulties. If society decides to subsidise newspapers, the subsidy should be raised across the board from the general revenue of the tools the Government have at their disposal and not just redistributed in the marginal area of newspapers?
Any feeling that one can redistribute is very vague unless one can specify the criteria with which one redistributes. This could cause some embarrassment. If the criterion is non-profitability, it is not just The Guardian which would qualify; it is the Daily Sketch. If the criterion is one of struggling journalists with very
1764
little money trying to put across their message, it does not apply only to the Sunday Citizen or Tribune; it applies also to the New Daily and Mosley's newspapers. There could be embarrassment if, in the queue for the subsidies, we included the wolves with the lambs. If any objective criterion were set, it would be extremely difficult to redistribute in a way which would necessarily concentrate the subsidy on filling the gap to the community when a newspaper fails.
In conclusion, I should like to indicate what I wish my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio to consider. If he agrees that newspapers are valuable to society because they convey the ideas which excite men's minds and are not merely products in the market place, surely he cannot shirk the Government's responsibility to maintain diversification in a situation in which the number of newspapers is ever dwindling. I do not take the view, which has been advanced today, that the present situation in the Press in terms of numbers of newspapers available is static, sacrosanct, God-given or necessarily desirable in the long term. What is important is not numbers but the range of diversity and the quality and range of the ideas expressed.
I pay tribute to the many newspaper proprietors who continue to carry newspapers which are showing a commercial loss because they are part of a globally profitable group. That is to their credit. I recognise that not all newspaper mergers are necessarily bad. There are many newspapers which have survived because of merger which would obviously have gone out of business if they had not merged. I saw recently that New Society had been acquired by the International Publishing Corporation. This filled me not with dismay but with a certain amount of pleasure, and I felt that the future of New Society as a journal was secure, with the resources of a large organisation and the kind of efficiency which an organisation like the I.P.C. can mount behind it. We should recognise this and give credit where it is due.
Having tried to demonstrate that an advertising levy would be hopeless in principle and practice and that subsidy should be concentrated feasibly and according to rational criteria and not under

1765
the table of misdirected Government advertising, I come to the point of how I believe the subsidy which I feel is necessary should be administered. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that now is the time for the Government to consider the possibility of setting up a national Press corporation or an advisory committee to consider the nature of the Press and the possibility of the Government purchasing machines and newsprint and concentrating the subsidy on lease terms to groups of working journalists who have some prospect of running a newspaper.
Some people will shout "No", but this is not a new departure. We have this principle in the Television Act in which the I.T.A. was set up as an advisory committee to give leases to television companies, many of which were in competition with each other. Six or seven companies went to the I.T.A. and asked for the franchise on leases for transmitters and the I.T.A. had to make a judgment on the basis of the group's financial security and experience and its ideas about how a station should be run. My hon. Friend's suggestion is feasible and the Government will ignore it at their peril.
I do not share the feeling that we should allow things to drift and stand back and touch wood that we are not debating the death of a newspaper. This debate is taking place because we want to prevent the deaths of more newspapers, which will undoubtedly occur if the forces of free enterprise and laissez faire in the Press are allowed to go untrammelled. It would be tragic if the Labour Government allowed a situation to develop in which a means of communication which we recognise as a vibrant force in society dwindled into a visionless monopoly.
8.35 p.m.
Sir Cyril Osborne: This is the first time in 20 years that I have walked into the House without thinking that I should make a speech. I hope that I shall make a contribution which is worthy of the notice of the Minister without Portfolio. I disagree completely with the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan). I hope that no Government will ever try forcibly to interfere with the Press by way of subsidy or con-
1766
trol. Unless we have a free Press, our liberties are in danger.
During the last hour it has seemed to me that a strange contrast has developed between this debate and that which took place on the Press in the other place only a fortnight ago, when people with authority spoke on the Press in a way in which no one in the House can speak.
Mr. Ryan: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), everyone—certainly on this side, and I think on his own side—who has taken part in the debate is connected with the Press in some way?
Sir C. Osborne: Yes, but those who spoke in the other House spoke from knowledge, experience and authority, including one person who used to be a member of a Labour Government. There is not the same authority in this House on this subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is one of the sad things about this House as compared with the other place.
Mr. Ryan: The hon. Gentleman has just come in.
Sir C. Osborne: And I have just listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The second thing which has occurred to me is that it was a great pity that a fine newspaper like The Guardian—I hope that it can again become the Manchester Guardian, and not The Guardian—had to force through economies amounting to £500,000 to survive. The Prime Minister, in a very courageous speech to the Press a fortnight ago, talked about the blackmail in the trade unions that made the Press inefficient and made it impossible for certain organs of the Press to survive.
Mr. Murray: No. Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir C. Osborne: Gracious me.
Mr. Murray: The E.I.U. Report and the two Royal Commissions on the Press were very critical of the trade unions but they said that this is not the reason why papers have closed down.
Sir C. Osborne: I am merely quoting what the Prime Minister said. He used the word "blackmail". I asked him, in

1767
a Question in the House, if he would publish the correspondence which he had with the trade unions concerned. He refused to do so. It is a great pity that a free Press cannot survive in this country because of the absurd restrictions in the trade union movement—
Mr. Murray: Nonsense.
Sir C. Osborne: These restrictions make the production of newspapers far more expensive than is necessary. It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads. They should ask their own Leader what he said to the Press on this very point and why he said it. If they want to carry the point still further, they should see the responsible people in The Guardian, which is a very responsible paper, and ascertain why that paper could not have survived if it had not forced through economies to the tune of £500,000.
I believe that a free Press is absolutely necessary to our liberties. There is no question, on the one hand, of the Government trying to compel people to buy a paper that they do not want to read, or, on the other hand, of trying to find subsidies to keep a paper alive that the people will not buy.
May I give the House three examples of my experience with the Press over the last 20 years? I remember, on the 28th floor of the Chicago Tribune building, talking to Colonel MacCormack, the owner. I told him that his paper was very successful as a money-earner but that its editorial influence was nil. The old colonel was furious when I told him that. I should hate to see any Government saying to a newspaper proprietor who could produce a newspaper which people bought freely that, because they did not agree with his political opinions, in some way his newspaper had to be restricted or else closed down.
In 1957, I had a long argument about the Press with Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow. When I talked to him in the Communist headquarters, I asked him, first of all, to stop jamming the B.B.C.'s broadcasts to Russia. Secondly, I said, "Why do you not let your people read our newspapers and find out what sort of people we are?" He replied, "Why should I let my people read a lot of the
1768
rubbish that appears in your Press?" The old boy went on, "It is true that I control my Press," and he claimed that, in doing so, he kept out a lot of the rubbish that appeared in our Press; that he had a restricted but better Press, whereas we had a freer but less responsible Press.
How far can people be allowed to publish what they like so long as others are prepared to buy it without restriction? Once the Government interfere with the contents of the Press, even from the highest motives, I believe that they start to tamper with the liberty of the individual.
Lastly, in 1950, I was a member of a delegation which went to see Marshal Tito. I told members of his Government that our liberties depended upon this kind of argument across the Floor of the House, with a free public listening and a free Press reporting what was said, and that if he claimed real liberty he had to give freedom to his Press in a way which did not then exist.
No matter how well-intentioned hon. Members may be in wanting to clean up or make a better Press, if they have to control the expression of the individual on important matters, ultimately we shall get where Hitler finally finished, whether he wanted to or not, and we shall lose the one thing that matters to us, and that is the ability to express ourselves in our own way about things that matter.
I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will say about it. Whatever he suggests, I hope that he will not advocate that on our return to power we should control the Press.
Dr. Hugh Gray: The hon. Gentleman supports the Arts Council; why not the Press Council?
Sir C. Osborne: I should prefer to see a bad Press which is free than a good Press that is restricted.
The final arbiters are the people who buy newspapers. In a free society, I do not believe that the boys in Whitehall know best on this issue. The final deciders are those who pay their fourpences and fivepences across the counter to buy newspapers. Anything that restricts the rights of people to read what they want is wrong.
8.45 p.m.
Sir Edward Boyle: There are two things which I must say at the beginning of my remarks. First, I must apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who is at a reception for Mr. Kosygin, which he felt he should attend. Secondly, I think that I would be voicing the feelings of the whole House if I spoke a word of welcome to the Minister without Portfolio who is to speak tonight for the first time since he returned to the Government Front Bench. Many of us feel that the right hon. Gentleman has had his full share, and perhaps more than his full share, of political adversity in recent years. We welcome him to this debate, though I am not sure that it makes much clearer his detailed functions as the Minister without Portfolio.
Having said those initial words, I should like to return to my real sense of the importance of the subject which we are discussing. I think that it is true to say that the total flow of sources of news is greater than it was 20 years ago, and certainly London in this respect is a far better place than any American city. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), and I think that we should also remember, when we consider the sources of news in Britain, not only the big national papers, but also the provincial ones.
I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party about the importance of the provincials, and the importance of papers with a local interest to the reader. As a Birmingham Member of Parliament, I know very well the value to Birmingham people of a paper with a Midlands interest. Again, if one goes to open a school anywhere, people like to feel that one knows the local details. They wish to hear details about their local concerns, and therefore I think it right that tonight we should not confine ourselves entirely to the national Press.
It is a great mistake to suppose that the development of television makes the Press any less important. Television gives one, as it were, the quick news—the flashes—and introduces one to many leading personalities, but the Press can still give us the story in depth, and, above all, give continuing coverage of a subject
1770
even after it is out of the headlines. This is a point to which I always feel one should attach great importance. A subject like Cyprus, or the Congo, may be out of the headlines, and yet many of us may want to pursue it and know what is going on. It is here that the Press is vital.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the need for a deeper analysis in the Press and more rigorous commentary than we usually have, and about the importance of public discussion in the Press of alternative possibilities of action. It is worth remembering in this context that, according to the Report of the E.I.U., one reason for the declining trend in Press circulation is to the credit of the Press, and not the reverse. I do not think that any hon. Member has quoted the passage on page 79 of the Financial Survey which says that the declining trend in circulation:
"is attributable partly to the reading habits of the British public and partly to the increasing news coverage of individual newspapers which is likely to reduce the number of people buying more than one newspaper."
One ought to remember, in fairness, the considerably increased news coverage of many of our national and provincial newspapers in recent years.
I agree with those hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have reminded us of the excellent value of the Press today. I sometimes think that in this period of rapidly rising prices one easily forgets the things that are good value. Goods like gramophone records and newspapers are remarkably good value for what they cost. But, having said that, it seems to me that we should be under no illusion about the seriousness of the situation presented by the Economist Intelligence Unit.
One minor advantage of having been connected with education for some years is that one gets used to reading documents of a certain length and size. I want to quote a crucial passage from the Report, on page 59 of the Financial Survey, which says:
"The crucial problem would appear to be one of revenue. The industry is faced with decreasing circulation, a reducing percentage increase from rises in price, and an increasing dependence on an inelastic supply of advertisement revenue which is very vulnerable to the economic climate of the country."

1771
Some pages on we read the other grim forecast that the effect on each individual newspaper will vary, but that
"out of 18 newspapers considered in this forecast (excluding magazines) probably only 9 can be reasonably certain of making a profit in 1970."
It is no good burking the fact that those are pretty grim remarks. In saying that, I am far from suggesting that the Report is beyond criticism. One could make many detailed criticisms of it. One point, in the context of advertisement revenue, is that the Report does not sufficiently distinguish between those newspapers much of whose advertising faces competition from television and those little of whose advertising faces such competition. Quality newspapers are in much the same position, as regards advertising, as if television still did not exist. I have been told that The Times has scarcely ten columns of advertising a week which might otherwise appear on television. There are a certain number of discriminations that this very important Report omits.
None the less, no one can doubt that the Report reveals a serious situation. I thought that some hon. Members were a little too optimistic about the effect of a rise in prices. From experience, it is just not true to say that readers will stick by a newspaper when the price is raised. Indeed, past experience suggests that a unilateral rise in price can be suicidal. Furthermore, in the section of the Report headed "conclusions" there is a very important point concerning the question how far a rise in price of newspapers could solve the problem. It says:
"Increases in the price of newspapers brings a declining percentage increase in total revenue. Already a penny increase in the price of some newspapers increases total revenue by only 4 or 5 per cent. This indicates that the present revenue pattern is likely to make the industry place a continually greater reliance on advertisement revenue."
There is little doubt that that is so. The economic climate of the next few years will be very important to the industry, although we must remember that the main benefit of any increased revenue is likely to go primarily to those newspapers which are already strong.
I have made those points because it is no good our burking them, and the facts presented in the Report show that a serious situation exists. However, there
1772
is one point on the other side that has not been mentioned but which is worth bearing in mind, namely, the extent to which, in financial terms, many of the weaker papers are linked to financially stronger ones. One needs to remember the links with provincial and evening newspapers. For example, The Guardian, which we know is in a difficult position, is linked to the Manchester Evening News, and the Daily Mail, which is a popular daily whose trend is not altogether favourable, is linked to the Evening News, which is financially stronger.
I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that it is a good sign, and something in which we can take pleasure, that the circulation of the quality newspapers has continued to rise. The whole development of the quality Sunday newspapers has been an outstanding feature of life in Britain in recent years.
I come now to the question of what should be done. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was right to reject this afternoon what he called "rescue action" by the Government. I am not dogmatically against aid to private industry in any and every circumstance. I am not sure that I am as good a Conservative son of Liberal forebears as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) on this, although he also was in the House when we as a party gave aid—I believe valuable and well-timed aid—to the cotton textile industry in 1959 for the purpose of regrouping. These matters must, therefore, be considered on their merits.
I do not believe that the analogy with the B.B.C. holds, any more than the analogy with the universities and the Arts Council. The President of the Board of Trade was right to point out that the B.B.C. does not put forward political views on its own account. A newspaper is a forum of debate in which the editor plays a full part; and in that respect a newspaper is in a different position from the B.B.C.
Again, for as far ahead as we can see, we will need to provide massive sums of public money for the universities, not only for the training of students but also for the pursuit of learning, and I welcome the fact that we have agreed that the

1773
arts should have more aid. But the President of the Board of Trade asked this pertinent question: is Government aid to any newspaper to be permanent and, if not—and this is the issue which must be faced—should a Government have to take the invidious political decision to allow a newspaper to close down? That is the relevant question which must be answered.
I reach the same view as that expressed by Lord Shawcross in another place, when he said:
"Nor can Government help, in whatever form it might be given, be given without in the end the Press having at some point to recognise the obligations which it had incurred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 25th January, 1967; Vol. 279, c. 571.]
I believe those words to be true. That being so, I accept the conclusion, just as Lord Shawcross did, that it must be for the Press itself to find the solution to its problems. The Press alone can do it if the freedom of the Press is to be maintained; and I therefore assure my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) that I have no ambition to be a member of a Conservative Government that controls the Press when we return to power after the next General Election.
I will devote the remainder of my speech to the question: how are we to maintain a sufficient variety of newspapers to meet the needs of a modern democracy? Several factors must be considered. The first is management. The E.I.U. Report makes it clear that the quality of management in the newspaper industry is uneven and that the industry is short of professionally trained managers. It states that hardly any managers have had board management training.
We need more facilities for management training and we must think out more rigorously the rationale of management training. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this tonight, but I hope that when the scheme of polytechnics is complete, some of them will able to provide post-experience courses in management, particularly since we are now discussing one of many industries where Post-experience courses could be of great importance.
1774
I add this on management. I believe that it is wrong for the Press to subordinate editorial policy totally to considerations of management. Perhaps I may give this example after a lapse of ten years—I think that it was in the week of the Suez affair that the Observer topped the Sunday Times for the first time in circulation. Whatever view we take about those events, can anyone say that it was mistaken policy on the part of the Observer, feeling passionately as the editorial staff did, to take the line it did over that affair, though in terms of circulation it was to prove costly? That is the sort of point that occurs to me when I consider the right relationship of editorial policy and efficient management. I also believe that a right policy editorially can compensate for less efficient management, but the two must be considered together.
Secondly, there is the importance of high-quality journalism. I agree very much about the need for high-quality journalists to be responsive to the needs and concerns of particular categories of readers whom a newspaper is trying to attract. I regret that we have not heard the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) in this debate, as he has written on this theme in Encounter with considerable force.
Thirdly, many hon. Members have spoken of the need to end inefficiency in production departments. There has been much reference to over-manning. I shall not add to what has been said on that. One of the most revealing and disturbing findings in the E.I.U. Report concerns the earnings structure of newspapers. On page 96 of the first survey it says that it is disquieting to find that:
"earnings do not bear a direct relation to the content of a job, nor to the skill and effort necessary to accomplish the job".
There are all kinds of further details which I have not time read to the House now. For example:
"Basic rates, though low compared with prewar levels, have ceased, for most offices, to have any real meaning except for determining overtime payments ".
The earning structure of the industry is obviously highly unsatisfactory.
In reading the Report one feels that the whole nomenclature of trade union organisation as revealed in it has something of an old-fashioned ring. For

1775
example, a journalist to whom I spoke today—a distinguished writer on The Guardian—told me that he once found a letter on his desk addressed to "The mother of chapel, The Guardian cleaners' chapel". Some of this nomenclature sounds rather Rochdale-like.
Mr. Roebuck: It is not Rochdale-like, but refers to the time when printing was carried out in Westminster Abbey. That is how the title "Father of the chapel" arose and it is an honourable title.
Sir E. Boyle: I am not saying that it is not an honourable title, but the hon. Member rather made the point for me when he said that it dates back so far. Certainly on the whole subject of overmanning I welcome the prospect of discussions between the Newspaper Proprietors Association and the trade unions.
Fourthly, and perhaps most important of all is technological development. I hope that on this whole question of efficiency we shall look positively at technological possibilities and not just negatively at problems of over-manning. Hon. Members have mentioned offset printing and the prospects which this gives not only for manpower economies but also for colour and better picture quality. There are great potentialities in typesetting by remote control. I know a little about this from my experience in book publishing where the first prototype of a computer setting machine is already working. I agree about the importance of trade unions having a genuine sense of the need to experiment in modern developments in technology. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that here the Government can give indirect assistance—they could quite properly make grants to research organisations in connection with these new techniques. This would be a perfectly proper operation for the National Research Development Corporation.
I end by emphasising once again the great importance of the Press. Surely, democracy as we know it in the West is bound up with the right to criticism. I believe that the fundamental truth about democracy was stated in Pericles's Funeral Oration when he used those great words:
"Though we may not all be able to frame a policy, we are all able to judge it."
1776
I am one of those who look upon the right to criticise one's rulers—the powers-that-be—as an absolute fundamental of liberty in any community.
While I do not play down the element of criticism and free discussion on television, television will always have something of the element of show business about it. For that reason, a free Press is unique and indispensable. The newspaper industry is indeed unique, yet it must ultimately justify itself in commercial terms. In Britain it has remained largely a proprietorial industry. I believe that the future of this vital industry depends in Britain on the conjuncture of skilled management teams linked to proprietors of drive and vision.
9.7 p.m.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) very much for the kind words with which he started his speech and I thank him also for his personal contribution to an admirable and excellent debate. I congratulate him, at this late hour of debate in both Houses, on managing to say something new about the relative impact of television on different kinds of papers. We shall all want tomorrow to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great care. It contained a lot of important points.
Unlike the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who said that he had heard one hour of our debate, it seemed to me that our debate was better, less hysterical and better-balanced than the debate in another place, which suffered from being too close to the problems that it was discussing. Everybody got all nervous about it and sounded as if everything would collapse at any moment. It was in particular all those whom the hon. Member was praising—all the men who knew everything about the industry—who contributed most to the neurotic atmosphere of that debate.
We, like the whole of the country, are concentrating our minds on this subject because of two events. One was the merger of The Times and the Sunday Times. I cannot see that there was any other possible solution that combined the independence and the viability of The Times. I know that everyone will agree

1777
with me in wishing the new editor, Mr. William Rees-Mogg, very well in this honourable and onerous task that has befallen him.
The other event was the Economist Intelligence Unit Report. It is to be noticed that it was only after great reluctance that the Press decided to apply to itself the kind of standards that it applies to all other institutions when a report is issued, And it decided only very slowly and reluctantly to publish and be damned. By many of the conclusions it was rather considerably damned.
None the less, it is fair to say that I do not think there is any other industry which, if subjected to that kind of scrutiny, would have come out any better. Many industries might well have come out worse. That is no defence for the Press. The Press has the searchlight on it and it must act to avoid the appalling prospect opened out by the E.I.U. Report that within a decade three national dailies and one national Sunday paper may disappear. The stark description of the causes of this is that approximately half of the industry is running at a loss and costs will rise faster than revenue over the next five years. That is a critical position.
Plainly, newspapers cannot make a loss and long survive, but it is important to remember that this does not imply the converse proposition that the purpose of a newspaper must be to maximise profits. I find a rather alarming tendency, as a number of my hon. Friends do, to treat a newspaper just as though it were another product like shoes or motor cars out of which one should make the maximum profit. One of the criticisms of the Economist Intelligence Unit Report is that it laid insufficient stress upon what one might call the creative side of the production of newspapers.
National newspapers of the kind we know in this country are unique and they are not just another commodity. No other country, I believe, has national newspapers in our sense, newspapers selling all over the country. It is this aspect of our national Press that gives us in very high degree a variety of papers each with its distinctive characteristic and each more or less catering for special sections of opinion. In the United States and else-
1778
where—how right the right hon. Gentleman was to emphasise how much better off London is than any other capital in the world—the normal pattern is to have only one or two newspapers, and often only one, in quite big cities so that each newspaper has to appeal or attempt to appeal to all sections simultaneously. They may have regional distinctions one from another according to the part of the country in which they appear, but they are much less differentiated in appeal than our newspapers and less distinctive in what one might call their political and social character.
It follows that the disappearance of one of our national newspapers must, by the very nature of things, deprive an important section of opinion of a newspaper which is directed to that opinion and in some sense, because that section of opinion has been buying it, catering for that opinion. This is why the disappearance of one of our great national newspapers cannot wholly be made up by the remainder. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between the disappearance of a great paper and an overall drop in circulation. After the News Chronicle went there was a drop particularly in the popular papers which has never been recovered.
This reason, the uniqueness of our national Press and the distinctive character of each national newspaper, is the real reason why it is essential, if possible, to keep the existing number of newspapers and why the going of any one would be a grave loss.
A number of hon. Members opposite somewhat exaggerated the effect of the squeeze on the present plight of newspapers. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, it is easily demonstrated that this is not the real cause. The News Chronicle and the Star went long before, and so on. What happened was that the squeeze, which certainly has hurt newspapers by reducing advertising revenue, revealed the underlying malaise and causes of the troubles of the Press. If one wishes to look for an immediate cause, though I think that even this only revealed an underlying cause, it was the coming of commercial television which had a far greater effect by abstracting advertising from the newspapers.

1779
I agree with much that the right hon. Gentleman said, but I endorse specifically in this connection his comment about television—that is, television as a whole, not just commercial television. Television does not, I think, hurt the newspapers as a competitor, though it may by taking advertising from them, but it has changed the nature of the Press by inducing it, or at least the better Press, to be more of a background Press carrying stories to explain at greater length what lies behind events. On the whole, those newspapers which are doing this are doing better. When the Daily Mirror changed five years ago or so, it was to make this kind of change, and I think that those papers which do not understand this are doing less well.
There has been a lot of talk about overmanning and labour relations in the industry. It is disturbing that little progress seems to have been made between the Shawcross Royal Commission of 1962 and the Report of the Economist Intelligence Unit.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Louth because he exaggerated this factor, that it is clear from all the reports that even if the over-manning, restrictive practices and so on were all removed that would not solve the problems of the Press. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would help."] I was going to say that. The hon. Gentleman almost said that it was the one thing that was ruining the newspapers. None the less, this, is an on-cost to the industry that it cannot now afford.
To solve the whole problem there must be a number of remedies. Some practices by unions cannot be defended, but I was very interested and glad to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) who explained how and why many of the demarcation problems and so on had occurred in a historically developing situation. The unofficial last-minute strike to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to as blackmail—and that is what he was referring to—must be totally condemned. On the other hand, there has been great progress in this, which gives good hope for the future. There have been considerable strides towards amalgamation of the printing unions, and I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said about
1780
how pleased he would be if there were a single union.
Mr. Wilkins: May I correct that? I said that the National Graphical Association is now on record as saying that it favours one industrial union—not a merger of unions, but a new industrial union for the printing industry.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I thank my hon. Friend very much. That would please me perhaps even more.
There has also been the merger of the N.U.J., in which I have carried a card for some 20 years, with the Institute of Journalists. Most important of all in this field, the trade unions joined with the managements to set up the Joint Board under the chairmanship of Lord Devlin, who has given signal service to the Press in that and in his capacity as Chairman of the Press Council. The Joint Board is a great development in the industry which many other industries could copy. The Press is ahead of many other industries here. It commissioned the Economist Intelligence Unit's Report at a very considerable cost of £47,000, and is now considering the report.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) pointed out, if one talks about over-manning one must remember that the editorial and other departments, and indeed the boards of directors, are sometimes also over-manned. We must also remember that the basic cause of over-manning and restrictive practices in this or any other industry is fundamentally and finally due to sloppy management.
Mr. Roebuck: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that editorial departments are over-manned?
Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that that is in one of the reports that have just been published.
Mr. Wyatt: Total misunderstanding of the nature of the industry.
Mr. Gordon Walker: That may well be, but it is in the E.I.U.'s Report.
Mr. Wyatt: What on earth does my hon. Friend mean by over-manning in editorial staff? Surely, the larger the editorial staff the more likely it is to get more and original stories, dig deeper into the subjects my right hon. Friend wants analysed, and give better service to its readers?
Mr. Gordon Walker: I suppose that my hon. Friend would say that that was true of a staff of a half a million or something. We have to draw the line at some point.—[Interruption.] The E.I.U. Report may well be wrong in this respect but I was quoting what it said.—[Interruption.]
Sir J. Rodgers: It is not the Bible.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a general debate, but it is not as general as that.
Mr. Gordon Walker: It is not the Bible, and I criticise it in many ways. It may be wrong in this respect. I was quoting what it said.
I think that poor management is the prime cause when unions take advantage of situations and push on and establish positions. They are not really to be blamed; it is much more the management that should be blamed.
The hon. Member for Hastings (Sir N. Cooper-Key) made a very courageous and frank speech about the strictures that have been passed on the industry by—not the Bible—but this important Report. I was glad to hear what he said. If that is the attitude of management to the Report, it gives one greater hope still in the future of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman and others are right in saying that the greatest need of all is for training in management, and we will certainly look into the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
The critical challenge that seems to me to be facing the industry and on which its whole future depends is that there is a combination now of an over-manned industry facing tremendous technological change. Indeed, if the newspapers had not invested so much capital in things which are now slightly obsolete, these technological changes would come even quicker. But they are going to come—facsimile reproduction and the other processes we have been hearing about.
It is the combination of over-manning with imminent technological change that has created this sense of insecurity in the labour force in particular but also among journalists. If the industry is to solve this problem of how to accommodate technological change smoothly—and its whole future will depend on this, I believe—management has to make a far closer study, ahead of time, of the effect
1782
of technological innovation on the total employment and its pattern.
Many of the Reports bear out that management has really been very defective in this. It has not thought far enough ahead to when technological changes are to be made. Management must realise that only if the feeling of insecurity is removed from labour is there any hope of the adaptability and the co-operation of the unions in the great changes which lie ahead. It is worth, in the end, spending money on this rather than have the extra cost which would come from a resentful and defensive labour force.
If there is to be technological change, it must be accompanied by a great increase in training and retraining schemes for the labour force and also for training for management. The Reports all seem to show that management here has been very slow in organising day and block release schemes and so on. It should pay much more attention to this.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has authorised preliminary talks for the setting up of an industrial training board for the printing industry. Unfortunately, I cannot give a date yet because it is always difficult to decide how one demarcates an industry for which such a board would work, but it will come into being and when it does it will help the industry to meet the tremendous challenges before it.
One of the greatest weaknesses of the present newspaper and printing industry—it has not been mentioned in the debate—is the marked increase of printing imports because of the work done abroad for the British market. It seems to me a shameful thing that the colour supplements of the Sunday newspapers are mostly, if not all, printed abroad because we either cannot do it as cheaply or we have not the technical means. It may be the latter reason. If so, it is very bad. [HON. MEMBERS:" They used to be."] I thought—
Mr. Wyatt: One was printed abroad for a short time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, not a conversation.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I thought that the Sunday Times colour supplement was printed abroad. I am very glad if I am wrong. None the less, though that

1783
example is not right, it is true that a great deal of book printing and colour printing is being done abroad. The printing industry merges into the two here.
Sir J. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman cannot make these remarks about the colour supplements in the Sunday newspapers being printed abroad. So far as I know, not a single one is.
Mr. Gordon Walker: I will withdraw what I said. I stand corrected and am glad to be corrected. I am happy that, in this respect, the industry is much stronger than I thought it was.
There is the question of certain outside methods of helping. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South wanted Government advertising to be differently distributed. I must say that I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dun-woody) and Uxbridge (Mr. Ryan) that it really is not possible to do this, as advertising must be done on the basis of effectiveness, with expert advice, and one could not begin to make the kind of political decision that one would have to make if one discriminated. Incidentally, if it were done by one Government, it could be reversed by another. This would be too dangerous a position.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Are not the Government helping the strong against the weak, instead of vice versa? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Trade is having a campaign to get local factories set up, and is not spending a penny on the Sunday Citizen, which through its contacts through the C.W.S. could provide many new factories?
Mr. Gordon Walker: Whether a particular newspaper should be used for this purpose is not for the Government as such to decide. It is something for the Government's expert advisers to decide. An expert might be wrong, but it is not for the Government to run the risk of making political decisions of this kind.
The same consideration applies to the proposal for a public corporation. Such a public corporation, I understand, is not to be for the purpose of printing papers but to provide the machinery for that purpose. In the last resort, it, too, would have to discriminate between one lot of
1784
newspapers and another. It would not provide printing for all newspapers, but for those which were weak or in difficulties. It would have to pick and choose. I do not see how a public corporation could do this any better than the Government, and I am sure that this is not something which a Government ought to do.
Although there is no possibility, or at any rate, no justification for direct Government intervention, there are certainly things which a Government can do, or refrain from doing, which would indirectly damage the Press. I am sure that commercial and local radio would very gravely hurt the provincial and local newspapers, and that a second I.T.V. channel would hurt the ordinary national Press by taking more advertising from it. Some hon. Gentlemen who stand up for the great future of the Press and who want these other things, are contradicting themselves.
Although the Government cannot intervene in these matters in any sense of discrimination, Parliament can play a very important part in this. This kind of debate helps to bring to bear upon the Press the pressure of public opinion which helps it to solve its problems. I am sure that if it was not in the glare of public opinion, if it was isolated and cut off from the public's knowledge of what was going on, it would find it much more difficult to adapt itself, as it must, and to modernise itself.
All sections of the Press must realise that it is in effect on public trial at the moment, and that in modern conditions it depends upon public judgment. The Press is no longer, as it was, immune from competition at home. Radio, magazines and all sorts of things are competing with it. If it does things which public opinion will not easily bear, such as allowing great newspapers to disappear, or to treat itself too much like a commodity, without realising that newspapers must be run with social, political and responsible purposes, in the end it will suffer in public esteem, and there will then be a steady decline in general circulation.
This debate has been extremely valuable. I hope that debates of this kind will become a feature of our proceedings, because it is extremely important for the future of the Press that

1785
no longer, as in the past, should public opinion be only something upon which the Press works, but that public opinion should also be something which acts upon the Press.
Mr. William Whitlock (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Land Bill), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time.

  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
  Mr. Harold Lever discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Charles Pannell added.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS ACT (MR. AND MRS. D'BRASS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitlock.]
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Grant: My first and pleasant task is to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to what, though not his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, is his first appearance there as a Home Office Minister. I recall that two years ago we went to Sweden together and I know of the liberal and compassionate way with which he looks on problems and indeed on life, and I know that these are qualities which he will bring to bear in the office which he now adorns. It is to the qualities of liberality and compassion that I appeal tonight.
  The Commonwealth Immigrants Act is now accepted by all sides in Britain as being necessary in the interests of our country and the people of the Commonwealth. Some accept that with a heavier heart than others. The Act limits persons who can come to this country to those who have obtained Ministry of Labour vouchers, which are restricted to two categories, those who have a job to come to and those with particular skills such as doctors, but there is also rightly a discretion which is vested in the Home Secretary in cases of hardship whereby he can waive the requirement that a

  1787
  Commonwealth citizen desiring to come here must get a Ministry of Labour voucher.
  All of us throughout the country would agree that a discretion of this nature must be vested in the Home Secretary in what is a very delicate and potentially explosive issue such as Commonwealth immigration. There is repeated criticism of the way in which the Act is evaded and dodged by some Commonwealth citizens and one is always receiving complaints as a constituency Member of certain people who seem to have got here all too easily, or to have wangled their way around the requirements of the Act. Many a doubtful hardship case appears to creep in, much to the irritation of not only the citizens of this country, but of citizens of the Commonwealth themselves who would like to come here. That is all the more reason why genuine sad cases of hardship should be treated with sympathy and humanity.
  It is in connection with a very genuine and touching case that I am fortunate enough to have secured the Adjournment debate tonight. I have two constituents, a Mr. and Mrs. D'Brass—I trust I pronounce their name correctly. They are 82 and 71 years of age respectively. They are both Anglo-Indians, from India. Mr. D'Brass is an ex-Service man who won two medals for his service in the First World War. He is deeply patriotic, and both he and his wife love this country dearly. I understand that three of their sons also served in the Second World War.
  Mr. and Mrs. D'Brass are distinguished because they have no less than 14 children. It is only right that I should say that a number of them, I think six, are already, under their own auspices, in this country. As so often happens in families, and it is not for us to criticise, there is often one particular favourite son who is dearly loved by his parents, and that is the case here. The particular son whom this couple would like to see is named Benjamin, and he is in India. My constituents say that this son has always been particularly good to them, a kind son who has given them very great love, and who desires to come here. They would like him to be here in order that he may spend with his mother and father what must be their relatively few declining years. Benjamin has sufficient money to come and is a most respectable man.
  1788
  Like his parents he is a great patriot of this country and is a skilled motor mechanic, who would have no difficulty in obtaining employment here. Not only would he be able to contribute to the happiness of a very fine old couple, but also to our country. I have had correspondence with the Home Office on this issue, and with the Ministry of Labour, who have told me that Benjamin does not qualify for the voucher scheme, because he does not come within the categories that I have described, and that the list of Commonwealth immigrants who have a job waiting for them is very long indeed.
  The list might be too long for this old couple ever to see their son. I appeal to the Home Office to treat this matter compassionately. The correspondence which I have had with the Home Office has been most courteous, but I have been told very bluntly that it cannot see its way to relenting on this issue. I believe that it has looked at the problem too superficially and rigidly. The Ministry should not underestimate the bitterness which could be caused on this delicate issue by undue rigidity. We all agree that there must be control of immigrants, but the Government must not interpret the rules too rigidly in such delicate circumstances. They must give the utmost consideration to the cases which come before them, and I would ask the Minister to tell us, if he is minded, as I hope he is not, to reject my sincere appeal, the criterion by which the Home Office assesses these hardship cases. If he is to tell us that he will accede to my rather poor oratory, then we will spare him that task.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is doubtless within my hon. Friend's recollection that when the Under-Secretary of State was not a Minister this was precisely the sort of case with which he used to have the greatest sympathy.
  Mr. Grant: That is why I look with hope and optimism to the Under-Secretary of State. He will remember the time when, as my hon. Friend said, he was in the same position as I am.
  My constituents look upon Britain as their home. They call it home, and they want their son to come home to them. Many Commonwealth citizens take the same view. This is part of the strength of the Commonwealth. This case, which is to enable a fine old couple to be reunited with their beloved son before their

  1789
  death, which cannot be far away, is about as compassionate as one could imagine. I cannot believe that the Minister will say that a case such as this would open the floodgates of immigration. Rather will it pour a little warm water on the rather chilly lives of an old couple.
  The best way in which I can describe their plight is to quote a letter from their medical practitioner in my constituency:
  "These two elderly folk are patients of mine. I have know them now for two years. They are both in their eighties"—
  one is in the seventies, in fact—
  "and are very frail and often ill. I do not suppose they will live very much longer. It would be a joy to them to see their son before they die. It would seem compassionate to allow their son to come home to this country to stay with them in their declining years."
  I sincerely beg the Under-Secretary of State to confirm the high opinion which I have always had of him and the Home Secretary as being humane and compassionate men who interpret rules liberally and not too rigidly. I beg him to bring joy and happiness to a fine old couple in the twilight of their days by waiving the requirements of the Ministry of Labour.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I endorse, the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), not only because he happens to be my Whip, but because I have considerable experience of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
  We have in this country a number of Commonwealth people whom the Home Office shows a certain unwillingness to deport although they are thoroughly undesirable. If the Department were a little more active in enforcing the provisions of the Act it might easily get rid of some of the people from Commonwealth countries whom we do not want and allow in people with aged parents here who have skills and are completely respectable.
  I do not know the details of this case to which I have listened with interest. The Anglo-Indians who served us very well when India was part of the Empire should be received with sympathy and consideration. If there is any reason why this man should not be allowed to come here, I shall be delighted to hear it. But I ask the Home Office to consider carefully the powers in the Com-
  1790
  monwealth Immigrants Act to deport and get rid of undesirable Commonwealth immigrants and to permit, where it is right to do so, the entry of those who can assist the employment situation in this country. I know that the Under-Secretary of State's time is limited and, therefore, I confine my remarks to what I have said.
  9.44 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I thank the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) for the kind remarks he made about me. I agree with him that mine is a task which requires compassion, because many times every day my right hon. Friend and I are required to take decisions in which human judgments are involved and which inevitably affect the future of human beings, whether they be in this country, or those who wish to come here, or, as in this case, both. It is also a job in which the qualities of firmness are required. If we had always to accede to a request when someone wished to come and when there were people who wished him to come, although I would not necessarily say that the flood-gates would be open, the whole principle of control—there has to be an element of control, as the hon. Gentleman said—would be undermined.
  In replying to the points made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) I should like, not just to deal with the particular point, but to put it in the perspective of immigration control as it affects Commonwealth citizens. There are certain categories of Commonwealth citizens who have an unquestioned legal right to be admitted to the United Kingdom. There are others who have not this right but who nevertheless are admitted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secre-in the exercise of his discretion. The remainder are, in general, refused admission.
  Of those admitted, some enter on condition that they leave the United Kingdom within a specified period. To some of these cases may be added a condition restricting the Commonwealth citizen's freedom to take work. All this is set out in the Home Secretary's "Instructions to Immigration Officers" published in August, 1966, as Cmnd. Paper 3064. My

  1791
  impression is that these revised instructions have been widely welcomed. They have added some clarity to the task of immigration officers, but yet they reflect my right hon. Friend's compassion and his anxiety not to separate families.
  I do not need to go over the whole ground. There are some who want to come here only temporarily—for example, as students or visitors. They are readily admitted for the period of their visit. We never wish to stand in the way of those who want to come here for a limited period. They can come in also in unlimited numbers. That is not relevant to this debate.
  Here we are dealing with an application from someone—a man with a wife and five children—who is subject to the immigration control and who wishes to settle in this country permanently. He is not coming here as a visitor or as a student. He wants to make his life here.
  This is a category of Commonwealth citizen, one who wants to come here and work and to stay here permanently, whose numbers the Government consider it essential to regulate. Although there may be individual hon. Members, perhaps on both sides of the House, who have questioned whether they should be regulated, there is no doubt that there is the view of the vast majority of Members of the House that it was necessary for the Government to regulate matters. Like our predecessors from the time when the Commonwealth immigration control was first imposed in 1962, we regulate the in take of these Commonwealth workers, those who wish to come here to work and stay here, by requiring each to obtain a Ministry of Labour voucher before coming. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour issues vouchers at a rate fixed by the Government from time to time. At present the rate is 8,500 a year. The demand greatly exceeds the supply. If it did not, we would not need to have this control. Those who apply to come in under vouchers must wait a considerable time. It may be sometimes not months, but years.
  The result is that we are constantly under pressure from people who want to settle in employment here to be absolved from the requirement of obtaining a labour voucher. They want to enter this country without waiting for their vouchers. The House will appreciate that
  1792
  it would frustrate the whole voucher scheme if we were to grant such applications too readily. For instance, if someone who comes here as a visitor and who is admitted here for a limited period then says, "I do not want to go back. I now want to settle here and take a job", we reluctantly have to say, "This would be unfair. This would mean that you would be getting ahead of the queue of those who are waiting their turn from the Commonwealth and who want to come here."
  If we are to have regulations, we have to be strict both in our enforcement of the normal requirement and, no less important, in granting dispensation from it in a fair and consistent way.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there are evasions, and that is true. The immigration officers have been co-operating splendidly in our efforts, by every means we know, to reduce the number of evasions, and the number has reduced substantially in the course of the past year.
  All sorts of devices are sought to frustrate the regulations by those who want to come here. There are those who come with forged passports, and those with bogus identifications, pretending that they are quite different from those whom they really are. But, again, this is not relevant to the case that is raised this evening.
  The case raised by the hon. Gentleman is one in which we have been asked to grant a dispensation from the normal rules. Let me remind the House of the circumstances as we know them. They are not really in conflict with what was said by the hon. Gentleman. His constituent, Mr. P. J. D'Brass, and his wife are elderly people. They came here from India in 1960 with one of their sons and his wife. As the hon. Gentleman has said, they have made a notable contribution not only to this country but to their own, and, they have made their home here. Part of my job is not only to see that the immigration rules are respected, but that those who come here are anxious to make this country their home. That, to me, is the most vital part of the job which I have been asked to do. I am happy that they feel that this is their home and that others of their family who have joined them also feel that this is their home. But, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a very large family.

  1793
  The D'Brass family, apart from Mr. and Mrs. D'Brass senior, who are elderly folk, comprises 14 sons and daughters. Apparently six of them are in the United Kingdom, so that it cannot be said that they are alone here, having left their 14 children in India. Six of their children are here, some are married, and certainly there are grandchildren. There are many families in this country who cannot claim to have six children here, let alone grandchildren.
  However, eight are still in India, and it is one of the eight, Mr. Benjamin D'Brass, who now wishes to come to settle in the United Kingdom. He is aged about 36. He has a wife and five children who would want to come with him, and it is not suggested that he is ill, incapacitated or himself suffering any hardship. There is no doubt, either, about his integrity or his ability to work.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what were the circumstances of compassion. Certainly if Mr. Benjamin D'Brass were on his own, incapacitated or dependent in some way upon his family here, that compassionate element would weigh powerfully with my right hon. Friend in reaching his decision. But that is not the case with which we are dealing this evening.
  There is, of course, nothing to prevent Mr. Benjamin D'Brass from applying for a Ministry of Labour voucher in the usual way, as every other Indian, Pakistani or Commonwealth citizen would who wishes to come to this country. However, there is a long waiting list, and it would be a very long time before his turn came. Naturally, because his parents are aged and he would like to see them before they die, he is reluctant to wait and would like to come now without waiting for a voucher.
  We are always ready to consider making an exception to our normal rules in exceptional circumstances. I fully appreciate and sympathise with the wish of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who are getting on in years, to have another of their sons near them now, rather than wait a year or two or however long it may be. I have to consider whether that very natural desire for greater family unity on the part of someone whom we have accepted as a resident in the United Kingdom is enough, of itself, to warrant a breach of the rule which we have to
  1794
  apply consistently and, I am afraid, strictly.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that immigration control ought perhaps not to be administered in such a way as to sever families. On this I feel bound to say that as a rule it is not the immigration control that severs families. It is due to the fact that a family has decided to come to this country, and of course there are families who are separated. Nevertheless, both the Statute and the instructions given to immigration officers by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recognise the claim of a family to be together.
  The rules to which I have referred concern both the young and the old, and if young people want to see their parents who are over 60, they can be given the opportunity of doing so. The Act gives a Commonwealth citizen a legal right to have his wife and children under 16 with him, and in the exercise of his discretion, my right hon. Friend is prepared to admit other young—the emphasis being on the word "young"—sons and daughters to join parents here.
  The hon. Gentleman probably knows the regulations as they affect children aged 16 and under 18. They can be freely admitted if they are coming to join both parents, or even only one surviving parent. The hon. Gentleman probably knows, too, that even after the age of 21 if someone is in a difficult situation, or is dependent on a parent here, he can, in discretion, be admitted. The spirit of these instructions is generous and compassionate, and I believe that the application of them is also generous and compassionate, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. As I am certain the hon. Gentleman will agree, there must come a stage at which a son or daughter becomes independent and ceases to be a member of the family for the purpose of immigration control. If we say that families must always be reunited, the flood gates will be opened.
  A son or daughter who is fully independent must qualify for admission under the immigration control in his or her own right, and not simply because he or she has a parent or other relative living here. This is a practical matter about which we must have some rules, and my right hon. Friend, like his predecessors from the time that control was introduced, has

  1795
  made the age of 18 the normal dividing line. This means that a Commonwealth citizen who has attained the age of 18 must normally qualify in his own right to be admitted through the immigration control. However, there is a concession. Those who have reached the age of 18, but are still under 21, and are members of the family in the real sense, are fully dependent, can be admitted. There is room for debate on whether 18 is the right age. Some say it should be a little higher, some say it should be a little lower, and some say none at all. I would not say this, and neither would my right hon. Friend.
  I do not think that anyone could reasonably suggest that any Commonwealth citizen of mature years—and Mr. Benjamin D'Brass is 36, and has a wife and five children—should be entitled to pass through immigration control and settle in the United Kingdom simply because he has a parent living here. To do this would be to enlarge the concept of the family beyond reasonable bounds, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what it would mean.
  The hon. Gentleman's constituents have eight sons and daughters overseas. No doubt all or some of them are married and have families of their own. There may be 50 or more members of this family overseas who would like to join the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The hon. Gentleman says that the person concerned here is a chosen son. It may be that the other seven feel that they
  1796
  have as much of a desire, and perhaps a right, to join their family as has this chosen son. Who are we to decide out of the eight who are there who is the chosen son and who is not?
  Mr. Grant: The parents can decide that.
  Mr. Ennals: Unfortunately, it cannot be just the parents who decide how to administer the immigration regulations, this has to be left to my right hon. Friend.
  I have looked with great care at the circumstances of the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he will realise that it is not just a question of this family. If we were to agree to a concession in this case thousands of other families here might ask for the same concession. This is not a superficial judgment. We looked at this request with sympathy and with care, but I am afraid that there was nothing in the circumstances of the case—and the hon. Gentleman has added nothing new—which made the claim for exceptional treatment any different from the thousands of others which come our way, and I regretfully come to the conclusion that I could not recommend my right hon. Friend to waive the normal rules, sympathetic though we were with this middle-aged couple and with the desire of their son to join them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Kennedy Round
  Kennedy Round
  Central Heating Systems (Doorstep Sales)
  Central Heating Systems (Doorstep Sales)
  Insurance Companies (Risks and Premiums)
  Insurance Companies (Risks and Premiums)
  Exports
  Exports
  Laundering and Cleaning Charges (Order)
  Laundering and Cleaning Charges (Order)
  Canadian Nickel (Imports)
  Canadian Nickel (Imports)
  Lowestoft Harbour (Fixed Beacon)
  Lowestoft Harbour (Fixed Beacon)
  European Economic Community (Australia and New Zealand)
  European Economic Community (Australia and New Zealand)
  Third-Party Motor Insurance (Law)
  Third-Party Motor Insurance (Law)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Motor Insurance Industry
  Motor Insurance Industry
  Patent Office (Site)
  Patent Office (Site)
  Lancashire Mills (Closures)
  Lancashire Mills (Closures)
  Companies
  Companies
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  British United Airways (Fare Increase)
  British United Airways (Fare Increase)
  Aircraft Noise (White Paper)
  Aircraft Noise (White Paper)
  Exports (Financial Assistance)
  Exports (Financial Assistance)
  Ghana International Trade Fair (British Pavilion)
  Ghana International Trade Fair (British Pavilion)
  Newsprint (Treaty of Rome)
  Newsprint (Treaty of Rome)
  Monopolies Commission (References)
  Monopolies Commission (References)
  Chemical Industry (Balance of Trade)
  Chemical Industry (Balance of Trade)
  Maltese Textiles (Imports)
  Maltese Textiles (Imports)
  Textile Industry (Anti-Dumping Action)
  Textile Industry (Anti-Dumping Action)
  Long-Range Vehicle Ferry Services
  Long-Range Vehicle Ferry Services
  Factory Projects (The Hartlepools)
  Factory Projects (The Hartlepools)
  Industrial Premises (Unused Space)
  Industrial Premises (Unused Space)
  Infant Milk Foods (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Infant Milk Foods (Monopolies Commission's Report)
SHIPPING
  Trawler Fleets (Stability Characteristics)
  Trawler Fleets (Stability Characteristics)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety Regulations)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety Regulations)
  Seamen (Accidents)
  Seamen (Accidents)
  British Passenger Ships (United States Ports)
  British Passenger Ships (United States Ports)
  Scottish Fishing Vessels (Injuries and Deaths)
  Scottish Fishing Vessels (Injuries and Deaths)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tenant Farmers (Displacement Compensation)
  Tenant Farmers (Displacement Compensation)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Fish Breeding Station, Northern Ireland
  Fish Breeding Station, Northern Ireland
  Fishing Vessel Building (Competitive Tendering)
  Fishing Vessel Building (Competitive Tendering)
  Marine Food Sources (Research)
  Marine Food Sources (Research)
  Eggs (Imports)
  Eggs (Imports)
  White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board (Structure)
  White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board (Structure)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Defence Research (Expenditure)
  Defence Research (Expenditure)
  Royal Marine Commandos (Rôle)
  Royal Marine Commandos (Rôle)
  Women's Services
  Women's Services
  Surplus Service Uniforms and Equipment (Civilian Use)
  Surplus Service Uniforms and Equipment (Civilian Use)
  British Forces, Germany (Home Leave Travel)
  British Forces, Germany (Home Leave Travel)
  Air League (Memorandum)
  Air League (Memorandum)
  Sandhurst (Welbeck College Entrants)
  Sandhurst (Welbeck College Entrants)
  Corporal Parker
  Corporal Parker
TRANSPORT
  Second-hand Cars
  Second-hand Cars
  Motor Vehicles (Fumes)
  Motor Vehicles (Fumes)
  "Total Loss" Vehicles
  "Total Loss" Vehicles
  Pedal Cyclists (Accidents)
  Pedal Cyclists (Accidents)
  Cycle Rear Lamps (British Standard)
  Cycle Rear Lamps (British Standard)
  Register of Approved Driving Instructors
  Register of Approved Driving Instructors
  Regional Co-ordinating Committees
  Regional Co-ordinating Committees
  Private Bus Services (Public Ownership)
  Private Bus Services (Public Ownership)
  Car Rallies
  Car Rallies
  Retired People (Concessionary Fares)
  Retired People (Concessionary Fares)
ROADS
  A38 (Exeter and Plymouth)
  A38 (Exeter and Plymouth)
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  M4, Chiswick (Lighting Standards)
  M4, Chiswick (Lighting Standards)
  East Lancashire Road (Liverpool End)
  East Lancashire Road (Liverpool End)
RAILWAYS
  New Contributory Pension Scheme
  New Contributory Pension Scheme
  Disused Railway Lines
  Disused Railway Lines
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  VG Aircraft and Helicopters (Anglo-French Agreement)
  VG Aircraft and Helicopters (Anglo-French Agreement)
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICES
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICES
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Export Rebates (Machine Tools)
  Export Rebates (Machine Tools)
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Gambling (Expenditure)
  Gambling (Expenditure)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Index of Production
  Index of Production
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Third London Airport (Siting)
  Third London Airport (Siting)
  Camp Sites
  Camp Sites
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Malta
  Malta
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Government of Colleges of Education (Recommendations)
  Government of Colleges of Education (Recommendations)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (AMBASSADOR'S SPEECH)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (AMBASSADOR'S SPEECH)
  LAURENCO MARQUES (BLOCKADE)
  LAURENCO MARQUES (BLOCKADE)
HOSPITALS
  Teaching Hospitals (Beds)
  Teaching Hospitals (Beds)
  Junior Medical Staff (Conditions of Service)
  Junior Medical Staff (Conditions of Service)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  United Arab Republic (Loans and Credits)
  United Arab Republic (Loans and Credits)
POST OFFICE
  Streets, North Ilford (Postal Areas)
  Streets, North Ilford (Postal Areas)
SCOTLAND
  Hospitals (Heating Systems)
  Hospitals (Heating Systems)
  Hospital Service (Staff)
  Hospital Service (Staff)
  Service Industries (Jobs)
  Service Industries (Jobs)
  Flooding (Prevention and Warning Systems)
  Flooding (Prevention and Warning Systems)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Hospital Patients (Record Sheets)
  Hospital Patients (Record Sheets)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Wrongful Arrest (Compensation)
  Wrongful Arrest (Compensation)
  Herring (Landing Quotas)
  Herring (Landing Quotas)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Long Leases)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Long Leases)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  New Town Development Corporations (New Salary Scales)
  New Town Development Corporations (New Salary Scales)
TECHNOLOGY
  Computer Manufacture (Scotland)
  Computer Manufacture (Scotland)
WALES
  Regional Transport Co-ordinating Committee
  Regional Transport Co-ordinating Committee

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

DIETETICS INFORMATION
2.35 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: 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 whether, in view of a recent report that one in six recruits to the Army show signs of rickets, they will consider means of publicising information on dietetics.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the report related to one recruiting centre only, during a period in 1962 to 1964. In general, there is very little evidence of rickets among children or other groups, but the position is being closely watched and the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy has instituted surveys into the diets of the more vulnerable sections of the community, including expectant mothers and pre-school children. Advice on diet is already widely available through general practitioners, local authorities and other organisations. The Press, especially the women's pages and the women's magazines, and the broadcasting services also, issue a great deal of advice on this subject.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full Answer. Do not Her Majesty's Government consider that more could be done, especially through the schools, to make it known that deficiency and diseases, such as rickets, are not in most cases caused by not eating enough, but by not enough of the right things?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Ministry of Health, for whom I speak
1358
here, accept the need for the most effective publicity possible, and they endeavour to assist by giving advice to producers of television and radio programmes, and by providing posters and pamphlets for display in child welfare clinics. The provision of information to schools would be a matter for the Department of Education, and they already see that instruction on diet is included in certain courses. But I should be loth to say that more could not be done, and I will certainly see that the suggestion made by my noble friend is looked into.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, is there not difficulty in reconciling the Answer which has been given to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to-day, with the Answer given to me yesterday?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should not have thought so. What my noble friend said yesterday was that the proportion of schoolchildren who have been found to suffer from deficiencies is a small percentage of the whole. That, I think, is reconcilable with what I have just said.

ACCOUNTANTS' FEES AND TAX ALLOWANCES
2.38 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: 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 allow private persons to set the expenses of an accountant against tax.]
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. I am advised that a tax deduction is not admissible for these expenses and that it has never been found possible to adopt the suggestion that the law on this matter should be changed.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I have no personal interest, because I have a business, and nearly all my accountant's time is taken up with that business. May I ask my noble friend whether the Government do not consider not only that such a concession would be fair to taxpayers, but that by encouraging taxpayers to send in professionally drawn-up tax returns Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes would be saved a great deal of time?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, obviously this is a matter that has been taken into account by many previous Administrations. In most cases—in fact, I think in the vast majority of cases—the taxpayers complete the form. If there are any difficulties—and difficulties sometimes arise—they can consult their accountant, their bank manager, or some of their friends. But I understand that there is no great problem at the moment.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as accountants are in many cases doing Government work for the Government, would it not be fairer that tax relief should be allowed?—because it is quite impossible for the ordinary individual, not trained as an accountant, to complete his form.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the individual is required to state on the form only the facts that are clearly known to him. This is a statement of his personal income. He is not required to do anything more.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, when Schedule A was abolished, the results in terms of tax were exceedingly complicated. There was an option in connection with Schedule A which took a lot of working out. Is it not rather much to expect people to do that entirely on their own? If we recognise the status of accountants by obliging the General Commissioners to hear them on appeal as is done under the 1952 Act, ought there not to be some provision in proper cases for allowing the cost of their services?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, when I saw this Question on the Order Paper I had a great fear that it would cause some interest. My noble friend will be aware that in the case of the capital gains tax and the Land Commission Bill accountants' fees, where they arise from work as a result of valuation and apportionment, are an allowable expense. I have not heard, other than from noble Lords this afternoon, that there is any major difficulty in the completion of a straightforward income tax return.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, my noble friend knows that when one firm is taken over by another the shareholders are faced with enormously complicated calculations with regard to capital gains tax. These calculations are worth £10 or £15 of any accountant's time. Is it right that
1360
unmathematically minded shareholders should be handicapped in this way without being able to recoup some of the cost?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I might say that I recently had to complete my son's first income tax return. It was a formidable document but, like most people in this country, having read it I was able to provide the necessary information. With regard to the more complicated matters which no doubt arise for those who are reasonably financially well-off, in my experience I find the services of my bank manager, which are fairly reasonable so far as cost is concerned, quite satisfactory.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is not the real reason that the innocent and the ignorant are more profitable to the Inland Revenue, and therefore it is not in the interests of the Government to allow this concession if they can possibly refuse it?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, quite obviously, I should not like to answer that question without notice.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Inland Revenue does not allow any allowances that are not claimed, and in view of the fact that many of these are of a highly technical nature, would it not be only fair that, as an accountant is necessary for the purpose of presenting all the claims to which a taxpayer is entitled, the cost of the accountant should be allowed in this connection?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, surely when you complete a form in regard to your own personal income tax the expenditure involved is (shall we say?) in the nature of any other form of expense we undertake in the course of our daily life. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed in this matter, but the law has been in existence for many years, and I am quite sure it would raise very serious difficulties if we were to consider a change.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if the position is as simple as the noble Lord says, how is it that certain taxpayers have not yet received their refunds of tax which are normally payable in November?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should have thought that that was entirely another question. I hope the House will not take advantage of the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms or Chief Whip answering for the Treasury; but if we wanted to pursue this very interesting point, perhaps we could consider it on another occasion.

MALTA
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty s Government the Question of which I have given them Private Notice, in the following terms:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the Maltese Government's declared intention to pass a Bill withdrawing the legal status of the British Forces to-morrow, whether they will make a Statement about the position."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beswick will reply to that Private Notice Question by way of a Statement shortly after 3.30 p.m.

BATH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BRUNEL UNIVERSITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SAINT BARNABAS, LEWISHAM BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT STEPHEN, SOUTH LAMBETH BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE
2.45 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Shackleton be appointed a member of the Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Shackleton be appointed a member of the Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the changes made by this Bill in its present form are, so far as I can judge, wholly acceptable to all Parties. That is the quality which, I suggest, every Bill to alter electoral arrangements ought to possess. The very basis of our democratic elections is that when the rules are changed they are changed with the assent of all concerned. The Bill to which we are asked to give a Third Reading differs from the Bill which received its Second Reading some three weeks ago, in that the provision to prolong the term of office of the present London borough councillors for a further 12 months has been removed from it. The Bill in its earlier form would have deprived 5 million people in Greater London of the right which they possess under the present law to vote in May of this year for the men and women of their choice to serve as their borough councillors from May onwards. There was very strong and justifiable feeling about this postponement of elections, a postponement at the behest of the Party now in the majority.
My Lords, what gave me concern at the earlier stages of the Bill was that I seemed to have failed in my endeavour to

1363
bring home to noble Lords opposite that there was a moral and constitutional issue involved in this matter. The Liberal Party in your Lordships' House have appreciated that—and I thank them for it. But noble Lords on the Benches opposite seemed to continue to think that I was making merely Party speeches, and that there was something questionable and "fishy" about my argument that it is not honest to alter the rules in the middle of the game without the willing assent of both sides.
I hope I may have greater success today in convincing them that I feel this most sincerely, and I should feel it whoever was winning at the time or was in power at the time. I therefore hope that the Government will accept these words of mine in all sincerity, and that noble Lords who voted for the postponement of the forthcoming elections will recognise how deeply I, and many others, feel that that would have been an unfair interference with the machinery of free elections, which ought to be so designed by Parliament that it is assented to by everybody as being fair.
2.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has once again expressed his strong feelings on the Bill that was introduced into your Lordships' House some weeks ago. I fully accept and understand his feelings. We have at least, in the passage of this Bill, found a general acceptance of the principles of the Bill, in that the elections in London for the Greater London Council and the London boroughs should be held in separate years. As I said during the Committee stage of the Bill, if the previous Administration who were responsible for the London Government Act 1963, had conceded the very strong case that we made on that occasion, and particularly that by my noble friends Lord Champion and Lord Latham, this Bill would not have been necessary. But on that occasion, as on so many other matters, they were extremely obstinate. However, we have now got the principle established, which I think is a good one for London government and local government as a whole.
The division that now lies between us is what is right in principle as to when elections should take place. I have made two long speeches setting out the reasons
1364
why we believe it is right that these important elections for the Greater London Council for 1967 should proceed and that the London borough elections should be postponed for one year, in order that the electorate should in no way be confused on the major issues. There is the division. I do not believe anything I can say is likely to persuade my noble friends to a contrary view, nor do I believe that anything I can say to noble Lords opposite will change their minds. As on so many things, there is a deep difference in our convictions.
This Bill now goes to another place. It is not for me in any way to surmise what their view will be. I hope that the rather rough remarks I may have made on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, and equally some of the rough words that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, used, will be forgotten; that we shall regard this more as a division of principle as to what is right, and leave it at that. In closing, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his manner which has enabled us to treat this Bill with expedition.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL
2.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is some nine years ago that I first became interested in the question of an Ombudsman, and about six years ago that I became convinced that we ought to have an Ombudsman in this country. So I have since done what I can in order to bring it about. Of course, I never thought the day might come when I should actually move the Second Reading of such a Bill, let alone do so in your Lordships' House.
It is a Bill which has three objects. The first object is to increase the powers of the Members of the House of Commons over the Executive. A number of

1365
us have for some time thought, rightly or wrongly, that for some years Parliament has tended to lose control of the Executive and that something ought to be done to correct this state of affairs. Its second object is to provide a remedy for the ordinary citizen who believes that he has been treated unjustly by a Government Department. Its third object is to improve the administration of the Central Government.
I believe that this Bill will achieve those three objects, and I say that at once because, for some reason, during the last fortnight (I do not know whether or not these things are catching) there have been several newspaper articles suggesting—partly, I think, because of a complete misapprehension by the newspapers of the effect of a subsection recently inserted in the Bill in another place—that this Bill is a shadow of its former self and will not achieve the object it was intended to achieve. This really came to a head in a remarkably silly article in a paper for which I ordinarily have regard, namely the Economist. The article was headed
"Stop it. The Lords should throw out the Ombudsman Bill and insist on a better one."
It concludes:
"The Bill should not be passed, but the gutless Labour majority in the Commons has, in defiance of its supposed principles, passed it. This is exactly the sort of legislation that the permanent Tory majority in the House of Lords should now be mustered to resist. They will soon have their chance. What will they do? How much do they care?"
If I did not think this was a good Bill I should not be moving its Second Reading. It is not a Bill that my Department is responsible for carrying through Parliament. It is just as important that the Parliamentary Commissioner, when he is appointed, should investigate the affairs of the Lord Chancellor's Department as any other. It is for that reason that the Department which has responsibility for the carriage of the Bill is the Treasury, which, for some reason I have never fully understood, is supposed to be a Department with no departmental interests. However, because of my long interest in the subject, my colleagues have kindly allowed me to move the Second Reading, and I do so because I believe this is the Bill for which we have been waiting.
I will deal first, shortly, with the history of the subject, then summarise the con-
1366
tents of the Bill, and then make one or two observations on some criticisms which have been made of it. The year 1809 is rather a long way back, but we have to start there because it was in that year that Sweden appointed the world's first Ombudsman. I have never thought that in this country we can draw any useful conclusion from the Swedish Ombudsman, because the whole constitutional and Parliamentary set-up there is so entirely different. They had then, as they have now, a Council of Ministers which decides questions of policy. They then have a civil service but no Minister is at the head of a department. They have not got Government Departments as we have, and there is no Ministerial responsibility for what the civil service do. There is merely a law which provides that if the civil servants do not act properly, proceedings can be taken against them and they can be fined or suspended or dismissed. They have director generals of what may in a sense be called departments, but the Ministers are in no way responsible for them. Although they have such a thing as a Parliamentary Question, this is simply for providing information, and in the course of an ordinary year only about one question a week is asked; there are 60 to 80 in the course of the complete year. Therefore it has never seemed to me that an officer appointed for the purpose of seeing that the civil servant has done his job—because that was what the Ombudsman was appointed for: to see whether the civil servants were carrying out the policy of the Ministers properly, and if not to take proceedings against them—had any real relevance to our situation.
It was in 1952 and 1953 that we in this country had the Crichel Down case, which was a very bad case of maladministration by civil servants. It was in March, 1955, that Denmark appointed Professor Hurwitz as its Ombudsman. They looked at the Swedish Ombudsman and deliberately rejected it as not being applicable to their situation. The Danish Ombudsman was appointed to consider any complaints made by citizens of maladministration on the part of the central Government and to persuade the departmental head to remedy it, and if he was not able to remedy it, to report it to Parliament, who could then deal with it.

1367
As a result of the Crichel Down case, the Franks Committee was appointed in November, 1955, and in the spring of 1957 a body called Justice was set up. Justice was the English branch of the International Commission of Jurists and it is an all-Party body of barristers, solicitors, and academic lawyers formed to uphold and strengthen the principles of the rule of law in the territories for which the British Parliament is directly or ultimately responsible, and in particular to assist in the maintenance of the highest standards of the administration of justice and in the preservation of the fundamental liberties of the individual.
It was in July of that year that the Franks Committee reported, and their Report is not only a document full of interest to lawyers and Parliamentarians but an important document for us in relation to our whole constitutional procedure. As your Lordships know, they recommended that there should be a Council on Tribunals to supervise the work of tribunals. As they themselves pointed out, their terms of reference were so narrow that, although in a sense their appointment arose out of the Crichel Down case, they had been unable really to deal with mere maladministration, which was accordingly left over. At the beginning of 1958 Justice considered this and appointed a committee to consider how maladministration ought to be dealt with, with special reference to the Scandinavian experience of an Ombudsman. That committee got together a lot of material, but came to the conclusion—they were all busy, part-time members—that since the subject was a very detailed one, involving considerable knowledge of exactly how Government Departments work, in order to be successful such a committee ought to have a full-time research director. That, of course, would have cost money, which Justice could not provide. Later that year the Tribunals and Inquiries Act appointing the Council on Tribunals was passed, giving effect to the recommendation of the Franks Committee.
At the end of 1958 Justice brought Professor Hurwitz to England, where he addressed meetings in London, Manchester, Oxford, Nottingham and Bristol. In the spring of 1959 Mr. Blom Cooper went to Stockholm and Copenhagen and, when he came back, wrote a series of
1368
articles in the Observer to publicise the proposals about an Ombudsman. In June, 1959, Justice at their annual general meeting said that, as soon as they could find the money, they were going ahead with a proper investigation of the subject, and in November the then Administration, in the House of Commons, being asked what their attitude was, said they would wait until the Justice committee had reported.
Credit should be given where credit is due. It was owing to the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Neville Blond and the Isaac Wolfson Foundation that early in 1960 money was found to appoint a whole-time research director in this field, and Justice was fortunate in obtaining the services of Sir John Whyatt, who had recently resigned as Chief Justice of Singapore, as Director of Research. The chairman of the committee was Mr. Norman Marsh, then Director of the British Institute of International Comparative Law, and the other two members were Sir Sidney Caine, Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Professor H. W. R. Wade, of Cambridge. They reported in October, 1961. I do not think many of your Lordships would have recognised anybody who was then on the Council of Justice, except perhaps the Chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and the Vice-Chairman, Sir Edwin Herbert, whom we now know as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley; a Mr. John Foster was Chairman of the Executive Committee, and I was Vice-Chairman. The other members of the Council included Mr. Hobson, subsequently Attorney General, Mr. Norman Marsh, now a Law Commissioner, Mr. Rawlinson, subsequently Solicitor General, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Professor Gower, now a Law Commissioner; and the two honorary treasurers were Mr. Jones, now Attorney General, and Mr. Roderic Bowen, subsequently Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Justice Report dealt separately with discretionary decisions and with maladministration. On discretionary decisions it was of the opinion that there might well be more tribunals and perhaps one overall tribunal, and on maladministration it recommended the appointment of an Ombudsman or a Parliamentary Commissioner. In the same year, Norway appointed an Ombudsman of this kind,

1369
and just as the Justice Report was going to Press there arrived a Bill which was then before the Parliament of New Zealand. The New Zealand authorities had been in touch with the Justice committee, and the New Zealand Bill was again very much on the lines which the Justice committee recommended. In November, in answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place, the then Administration said they were still considering the matter. On December 7, my noble friend Lord Silkin raised the matter in your Lordships' House, and, at column 216, the noble and learned Viscount, the then Lord Chancellor, said—and I read only the relevant extracts:
"That brings me to the subject of the Whyatt Report… First, it deals with complaints against discretionary decisions where the citizen disagrees with the way in which an official has exercised his discretion …The second as again the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made clear, is formed by complaints against acts of maladministration which are complaints aimed at official misconduct …The remedy suggested by the Whyatt Report for the first type of complaint is, broadly, an extension of the tribunal procedure over a much wider field than at present. The Report suggests that the powers of the Council on Tribunals should be extended so that it can survey those areas where there are no tribunals at the moment … It is further recommended that a General Appeal Tribunal should be established to deal with appeals from miscellaneous discretionary decisions. … For the second type of complaint the Whyatt Report suggests the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 7/12/61, cols. 216–7.]
And then at the end, col. 220, the noble and learned Viscount said:
"the Government must have further time before they can reasonably be expected to be in a position to define their attitude to it."
A year later, on November 8, the Government having had sufficient time, their decision was made known in your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and it was as follows (col. 384):
"My Lords, the organisation known as Justice made two proposals: first, that the Council on Tribunals should survey the area in which there is at present no right of appeal against a discretionary decision made by or on behalf of a Minister, with a view to providing a right of appeal in such cases to an independent tribunal; and secondly, that a Parliamentary Commissioner should be appointed to investigate cases of alleged maladministration. The Government consider that there are serious objections in principle to both proposals and that it would not be possible to reconcile them with the principle of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament.
1370
They believe that any substantial extension of the system of reference to tribunals would lead to inflexibility and delay in administration, and that the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner would seriously interfere with the prompt and efficient dispatch of public business. In the Government's view there is already adequate provision under our constitutional and Parliamentary practice for the redress of any genuine complaint of maladministration, in particular by means of the citizen's right of access to Members of Parliament."
In 1964, in February, the Young Conservatives said they did not agree with that. They seemed to have agreed with Justice about the Commissioner, but Mr. Heath and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, upheld the decision which I have just announced. On April 20, 1964, the present Prime Minister made it plain that he would give favourable consideration to the appointment of a Parliamentary Commissioner, and in the General Election Manifesto of his Party it is stated:
"New ways must be found to ensure that the growth of Government activity does not infringe the liberties of the subject. This is why we attach so much importance to humanising the whole administration of the State, and that is why we shall set up the new office of Parliamentary Commissioner with the right to investigate the grievances of the citizen and report to a Select Committee of this House."
In "Panorama", during the Election, I upheld the proposal for a Parliamentary Commissioner, which was ridiculed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on behalf of the Conservative Party, and we also had the view of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, on behalf of the Liberal Party. This surprised me a little, because I think the Council of the Liberal Party had passed a resolution in favour of it. However, one understands, I suppose, that once something is in one Party's Manifesto, everybody else has to oppose it on principle. Your Lordships may remember that there was a White Paper in October, 1965, but that it was not possible to introduce the Bill during that Parliament because of the General Election. Now it is before your Lordships.
There are five basic points about the Bill. The first is the high status and wide measure of independence of the Parliamentary Commissioner. The second is that his function will be to investigate actions taken on behalf of the Crown. The sphere, therefore, is the Central Government on one side, and the citizen on the other. Thirdly, he is given unprecedented powers to provide for the

1371
examination of documents and obtaining evidence from Ministers, civil servants and private persons. Fourthly, the purpose of the investigation is to bring to light administration which has caused injustice to the citizen. Fifthly and lastly, complaints will be made to him through Members of the House of Commons; and it will be for the House to deal with Ministers where they refuse to remedy an injustice in a way which the Parliamentary Commissioner recommends.
Before actually coming to the Bill, may I say that it departs from the Justice Report in three respects in particular. First of all, as soon as one thinks about it it is obvious that there must be some exceptions—for example, security cases; questions which will involve us in difficulties with foreign countries; and the Queen's Proctor. This led Justice to say that when the Parliamentary Commissioner wrote, as he must do first, to the head of a department to say, "I have had this complaint, and I am coming to see you to investigate it", the Minister was to have an absolute veto at that point. So that in any particular case the Minister could simply say, No.
The Whyatt Report expressed the hope that Ministers would not use the veto often; but being conscious that there were points where it would be clearly wrong that a Commissioner should investigate them, the Report recommended that the Minister should have that power of veto. This Bill throws the veto out of the window. Under this Bill, no Minister can stop an investigation being made, though there are contained in Schedule 3 the cases which the Whyatt Committee had in mind as being unsuitable—for example, prerogative of mercy. There are a number of cases in which it would clearly be undesirable. But they are specified, and it is because they are specified and excluded that it has been possible to throw the veto out of the window and give a Minister no power at all to refuse to allow an investigation to take place.
Secondly, the Whyatt Committee were worried as to exactly what documents the Commissioner should be able to look at. Obviously, all the correspondence in the Government Department. But what about the Minutes? Is it not of the essence of our system of organisation in Government Departments that civil ser-
1372
vants should feel absolutely free to express their opinion in their Minutes to the Ministers, and that Ministers should receive the benefit of the genuine advice of their civil servants, without the civil servants having to fear that their Minutes may one day be published and they may be criticised about them?
On that point, the Whyatt Report speaks of the question as to whether Minutes recording internal discussions between departmental officials should be treated as confidential. The Report says:
"There is a strong case for the view that they should be so treated, in order that the officials may be able to express their opinions freely and without the personal restraint which would be required if the Minutes were likely to be made public. It should also be borne in mind that, if it were necessary to draft Minutes with a view to defending them against public criticism, the administrative process would be slowed down considerably. On the whole, we think it is in the interests of good administration that internal Minutes should be regarded as confidential, and that unless it can be said that the Parliamentary Commissioner would be unable to carry out his duties efficiently without access to internal Minutes, he should not be entitled to see them."
That this Bill throws out of the window. The Parliamentary Commissioner will be able to look at all the documents of a Government Department, including departmental Minutes, while reserving some right to the Minister to object to particular documents being later recorded outside the office of the Commissioner. But the Commissioner will be able to look at all documents, including the Minutes.
The third difference is this. Naturally, the Whyatt Committee exhumed the continued existence of Crown privilege under which any Minister of State, if he signs the document saying that the production of a particular document will be contrary to public interest, can obtain privilege for that document. This, of course, applies in all our courts. There are some of us who do not think that that is right. There are some of us who think that anyhow the judge, who is a responsible sort of person, should at least be allowed to look at the document himself, because it is easy for a Secretary of State—I am sure that Secretaries of State do what they think is right—to sign a piece of paper saying that he thinks the production of a document would be contrary to the public interest.

1373
I think it has always been the law in Scotland that a judge can look at the documents himself, and then make up his own mind. I have always thought that the advantage of that is that a judge, in the responsible position he occupies, naturally has regard to the public interest. But he can do what the Minister cannot do: he can weigh the degree to which the public interest might or might not suffer if the document is disclosed, together with the importance of the document to the parties in the case. He may look at the document and see at once that it would not matter two pence to the parties whether it was disclosed or not. On the other hand, looking at the document he may say, "This is vital to the parties if justice is to be done between them." That, I think, has always been the law in Scotland. I say no more about that, because the Law Reform Committee is considering the whole of our law of evidence, and the question on which it is at present engaged is our law of Crown privilege.
The Government have felt that in this special field of the Parliamentary Commissioner Crown privilege ought not to apply, and therefore no Minister will be able to object to the production to the Commissioner of a document on the ground that it will be contrary to the public interest that they should disclose it to him. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that in these three respects the Bill in fact goes further than the recommendations of the Whyatt Committee.
Turning to the Bill, itself, Clauses 1 to 3 provide for the independence of the Parliamentary Commissioner. It is modelled largely on the precedent of the Comptroller and Auditor General who, for this purpose, and most successfully, has been a sort of financial Ombudsman for this country for quite a long time. As the Bill was drafted, the Parliamentary Commissioner, apart from having to retire at the age of 65, could be removed only by a Resolution of the House of Commons, but the Government have accepted an Opposition Amendment to enlarge this to removal only on an address from both Houses of Parliament. This applies to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and there is no reason why it should not apply to the Commissioner. So there he is, completely independent. These clauses also provide
1374
for his remuneration and his pension and, of course, for the appointment and remuneration of his staff.
Clause 4 lists in Schedule 2 the Departments and authorities which are to be subject to investigation, and includes, I think, all Departments with which members of the public are likely to be in contact. It does not, for example, include the Public Works Loan Board, because obviously only local authorities have dealings with the Government in relation to that body. Clause 4(2) provides for the addition of future or other Government Departments to be made, without further legislation, by an Order in Council subject to annulment procedure. On the Committee stage of the Bill your Lordships will be asked to add to the list the Land Commission, which could not be included until the Land Commission Bill had become an Act. There are some notes dealing with specific offices not to be included. There is reference to the Lord President of the Council's Office as not including the Privy Council Office; and to the Treasury as not including the Cabinet Office. But again an Order can at any time be made taking any of those out, if Parliament thinks fit to do so.
The provisions of Clause 5(1) are central to the scheme. They make clear, first, that any investigation must be into the administrative action of a Department listed in Schedule 2, and that all that is necessary for an investigation is that, with the consent of a constituent, a Member of another place reports the case to the Commissioner as being one in which the constituent is complaining that he has suffered an injustice as a result of maladministration by a Government Department. Experience has shown that any attempt to define "maladministration" would be a great mistake. It covers negligence, ineptitude, dishonesty. It is a thing which, like an elephant, one recognises, but which is difficult to define, and it must be appreciated that the Commissioner most of the time will not know the size of the task he has before him until he starts investigating it.
As your Lordships know, if a man is permanently injured, the fact whether he gets an invalid carriage or not depends on the decision of a civil servant in the Ministry of Health. The complaint to the Commissioner may be, "I am a badly

1375
injured man and have been turned down when applying for an invalid carriage. The man next door, who is not nearly as badly injured as I am, has an invalid carriage". In fact the difference of treatment may be due to all sorts of causes. It may be, though it is wildly unlikely, that the civil servant has been bribed by the man next door, or perhaps he is a pal of his. Or it may be that the man who is less badly injured can do a job if he can get a vehicle in which to get to work. In such a case the Ministry may feel, quite sensibly, that a carriage should be provided to the man who is capable of going out to do a job of work rather than to a man who cannot go out. Or it may be that the two cases have been dealt with by two civil servants, each of whom has construed differently an ambiguous instruction from the Permanent Secretary. So half the time, until the Commissioner actually goes into the matter, he will not know whether this is maladministration or not, or, if it is, what kind of maladministration it is.
It was never intended that the Commissioner should be a superior House of Lords to overrule your Lordships' House in matters of law or, for that matter, to overrule administrative tribunals, from whom in many cases there is an appeal to an appeals tribunal. Accordingly, Clause 5(2) excludes cases in which the citizen has a right to go to a court or to a tribunal. But it has been felt that there may be cases in which, although theoretically he could go to a court, because one can so often ask for a declaration in the Chancery Division or something of that kind, the Commissioner ought to have a discretion to say: "Well, although technically he has a legal right to go to a court, it would be unreasonable in the circumstances of the case to expect him to do so". The Bill, as originally drafted, contained no such exception for those who had a right to go to a tribunal, but the Government have accepted an amendment by which the Commissioner will also have a discretion in relation to a tribunal. Clause 5(5) provides again that the classes in Schedule 3 which are at present excluded, like the prerogative of mercy, and so on, may at any time be deleted by an Order in Council, subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure; so that those things which are excluded by Schedule 3 can be re-
1376
duced but cannot be increased. There can be no additional exclusions, but such exclusions as there are can be reduced.
The subsection which I think has been greatly misunderstood by the Press is one which is inherent in the Bill throughout, and which was put in only as a suggestion to make the thing clear. That is Clause 5(4), which says:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Commissioner to review by way of appeal any decision taken by a government department or other authority in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority."
It was never intended that a Parliamentary Commissioner or Ombudsman should be a one-man court of appeal against every policy decision or discretionary decision of a Minister. From the Whyatt Report on, that has always been the case. In regard to discretionary decisions, the Whyatt Report recommended an extension of the powers of the Council on Tribunals to a wider class of case, and that your Lordships did only a few months ago. Nobody has yet put forward the constitution of a sort of general appeal tribunal from other discretionary decisions, but, as I have said, it has always been clear, from the Whyatt Report onwards, that the whole idea of a Commissioner or Ombudsman is not to act as a court of appeal. That is why it excludes a review by way of appeal from decisions of Ministers in regard to questions on which, of course, they are responsible to Parliament.
If I may turn to the matter of maladministration, when we were considering, the Companies Bill I took as an example the position of the Board of Trade, which had the responsibility of saying whether or not somebody was to be allowed to start an insurance business. We considered whether or not it might be a hardship to him that he would not be told exactly what the Board of Trade had against him. Your Lordships came to the same conclusion as another place, that a distinction should be drawn between cases in which the Board was closing down an already established business, which it could not do without telling the person concerned what there was against him, and, on the other hand, where he was merely being refused leave to start a business when, on balance, it was thought they should not have to tell him. Obviously if they did tell him they

1377
would render that source of information useless for the future. But I did say then, and it is correct, that this will not in any way prevent the Commissioner from investigating such a case.
No doubt the question whether somebody ought to be allowed to start an insurance business is a matter of opinion on which two honest men might differ, and for a decision on which the Minister will be responsible to Parliament, and the Commissioner will not be able to review that decision by way of appeal. But the Commissioner will be able to cross-examine the President of the Board of Trade and his officials, and look at all the documents, and report that the Minister had only one source of information, and that a rather doubtful one; that he made no attempt to check the information outside; that there were, in fact, relevant documents in the Department at the time and that he did not have them in front of him when he came to make his decision.
Clause 5(6) makes clear the independent position of the Commissioner. Neither Parliament nor the Executive will have power to tell him how he is to do his work. Clauses 6 and 7 show who may make complaints and how investigations are to be carried out. They are to be informal. Anybody can make a complaint against public sector bodies— that is to say, one Government Department cannot complain against another, nor can a local authority; but, subject to that, any person or body living in the United Kingdom or on a visit here when something takes place can complain to the Commissioner. Investigations will be conducted in private. There will be no need for the formal taking of evidence, though the Commissioner, if he thinks fit, can take evidence on oath. There is no provision for legal aid, but the Commissioner's power to pay expenses under Clause 7(3) will include payment of legal expenses, if he decides to allow legal representation under his discretion in Clause 7(2).
Clause 8 gives the Commissioner his unprecedented power of access to departmental information, and it makes it clear that Crown privilege is not to apply. Clause 9 gives him power to take action against anybody seeking to obstruct an investigation. Clause 10 provides that he will be the investigator. While he
1378
will have no executive power, experience has shown elsewhere—for example, in New Zealand—that it is only about once a year that a Minister does not do what the Commissioner says he ought to do to remedy something which has not been done rightly. Ministers, I suppose, do not want to be reported against. Although the Commissioner has no power to make orders, it is thought that it will be very rare in practice that a Minister will not do what the Commissioner advises and that the Commissioner will have to report to the House of Commons, where a Select Committee will be appointed. That Select Committee will have no power to control the Commissioner, or to tell the Commissioner what he is to do. The only function of the Select Committee will be to deal with any Minister who does not comply with the recommendations of the Commissioner.
Clause 11 makes the necessary provisions for confidentiality, which are, of course, important. Information disclosed in the Commissioner's reports may also be controlled, where Ministers consider this to be essential for the particular circumstances described in Clause 11(3). This is really a necessary corollary of the waiving of Crown privilege, when the documents are seen by the Commissioner and his staff. This, as I have said, gives effect in substance to the recommendations of the Whyatt Report, though in the three respects which I have mentioned it goes further.
Criticisms of the Bill have been mainly, I think, that certain things have not been included, particularly nationalised industries and local authorities. It has never been any part of the Government's case that it would not be a very good thing if every local authority in the country had its own Ombudsman. But to suggest that the Parliamentary Commissioner should take under his wing local authorities would be quite contrary to the whole conception of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He is really an extension of the powers of Members of the House of Commons to deal with the grievances of the citizens. Neither he nor a Select Committee of the House of Commons has any control over local authorities. They could not enforce in any way any recommendation which any such Commissioner might make.

1379
Of course, the same applies to the nationalised industries, except in so far as general control is concerned. The real test for seeing whether or not something comes under the Commissioner, subject to the Schedules, is to ask, "Could a Parliamentary Question be asked about it?" As we know, there is a limit to the extent to which Parliamentary Questions can be asked about nationalised industries, the detailed administration of which is not subject to Government control, and the same applies here.
There are other matters which have been excluded and which might have been included. For example, there are personnel matters in the Armed Forces, and Civil Service. The civil servants themselves said they did not want to be included, because they are satisfied with their system of Whitley Committees, and they did not wish to call on the services of the Ombudsman. In general, where the relationship between the complainer and the Government is not that of central Government and citizen but that of employer and employee, it has been excluded. It could always be included later, but at present the one danger or difficulty which appears to those who have thought a good deal about appointing a Parliamentary Commissioner or an Ombudsman in this country has always been this point, which we have always had to face.
It is true to say that in Denmark and, I believe, in Norway, and certainly in New Zealand, that wherever such an officer has been tried he has been enormously successful. It has depended partly on the fact that he more or less deals with everything himself. I do not mean that he has no staff, but the complaints are not so many that his personality, known to the public, has not been of the greatest value. But it has never been done in a country with a population of more than 6 million, and here we are trying to apply the same idea to a population of 50 million. We have always had to face that fact, and that is why everybody who has been most anxious to see the establishment of a Parliamentary Commissioner has always said, "For goodness' sake! do not let us try to overdo the thing to start with". It is a sensible English habit to start things on a reasonable scale, and if they
1380
work they can always be extended. For example, after four years the scope of the Danish Ombudsman was extended in some way to include local government.
But there are men who have written once a week to the Lord Chancellor for the last ten years, and since the 1959 Mental Health Act there are a great many people about with bees in their bonnets. They are not dangerous, and if they are not dangerous we are all glad that they are at large and not in some mental hospital. When they are dangerous some of us think that really they ought to be secured somewhere. There are also borderline cases under that Act, where one appreciates the psychiatrist's view that a man is better off at home but if he is as borderline as that it places a very great weight on his wife and children. We have always recognised that there are people of that kind, and many Members of another place have—I do not know whether any of your Lordships have—already had letters from shoals of people of that character waiting for the Commissioner to be established. Therefore, as to bodies like the Armed Forces and the Civil Service, I would urge upon your Lordships the view that it is wise not to try to do too much at first. These can always be added by a simple Order in Council without further legislation, and in those respects the present field of the Bill is quite wide enough.
Finally, my Lords, there is a matter of obvious interest to your Lordships, and that is the fact that a citizen can go to the Commissioner only through a Member of the House of Commons—not necessarily his own Member, but through a Member. The question which may interest your Lordships—I do not know; perhaps it may not—is whether Members of your Lordships' House should not have been included. There is a certain amount to be said about this, both ways, although the Government have come to the conclusion that it should be limited to Members of the House of Commons. One can say, on the one hand, first, that it seems rather discourteous not to include Members of your Lordships' House; and, secondly, that if it is so limited to the House of Commons the Ombudsman ought really to be called a House of Commons Commissioner and

1381
not a Parliamentary Commissioner, because Parliament has two Chambers. On the other hand, of course, the basic conception is that of an extension of the powers of the ordinary Members of the other place, who are historically the proper receptacle for the grievances of people.
I should have thought it was rather an awful life being a Member of the House of Commons. It is very destructive of domestic life, and for years one has no real control of whatever Government are in power. Then, after years your Party gets in, and you either get an office or you do not. Even if you do, you may find yourself returning at short notice to the Back Benches. The real attraction, as it seems to me, is that inevitably they spend a great deal of their lives as welfare officers, at their weekly or fortnightly "surgeries". They really are the people who are told by the ordinary people all over the country just where the shoe pinches. Any human being who can do a good turn to another human being is, I think, happier than he was before he did it, and it may be that that is the real attraction.
Although there was no very detailed evidence, some Members have kept careful records, and they all seemed to be agreed that the average number of constituency problems a year is between 250,000 and 300,000;and all the Ministers said that it was very rare indeed for any Minister to get what one might call a constituency letter from a Member of your Lordships' House. Therefore, on balance, it was felt better to restrict the provision to Members of the House of Commons. That, as I say, is a point which may or may not interest your Lordships at a later stage of this Bill.
My Lords, there is nothing wrong with this Bill. I do not know why, in the last fortnight, it seems to have been depreciated. I can certainly recommend it to your Lordships' House. It has, I think, been needed for a very long time.
1382
It will be an additional weapon to the Member who puts down a Question—when, of course, the Answer is written by the civil servant who made the mistake; and, although one can raise the matter on an Adjournment debate, that very often does not carry it very much further. Here, indeed, is a further weapon for Members of the other House to use. It will, I am sure, remedy the grievances of citizens, not necessarily dramatically.
The experience of Commissioners shows that very often it is, for example, a question of delay. I remember one or two cases in Denmark, I think, of small claims for income tax refund. One gets a postcard acknowledging it after about a month, and then nothing at all happens. One writes again, and they say they have been busy. In Denmark this led to a complete overhaul of the administration of that particular department of the Revenue, and all applications for refunds are now dealt with in a week. Or, very often, the real trouble is that the citizen would have understood exactly what had happened and the reason for it if only he had been told the reason. In such a case the Commissioner says to the Minister concerned, "For goodness sake instruct your people to tell them the reason in future. They are entitled to know it".
I am quite sure that this Bill will achieve its object of, in many cases, remedying the grievances of the citizen, and also, of course, improving our administration. We have, as we all know, a very fine Civil Service, but there is nothing that cannot be improved; and the fact that somebody can always walk in and look at all your documents, including your Minutes, and cross-examine you may have a valuable effect. It is on those grounds that I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

MALTA
3.46 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I now answer the Private Notice Question which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked earlier. If I may, I will use the same words as were used by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary in reply to a similar Question in another place.
"The High Commissioner was instructed to make a new approach to the Malta Government on February 6. He did so on the same evening, and I understand that the Malta Government are still considering those proposals. I expect to receive a very early reply, but in the meantime, at this very delicate stage, I am sure the House will understand if I do not make a Statement at this moment."
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am sure none of us would wish to say anything that would make it more difficult for Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion of this crisis, but may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the great forbearance we have been showing in this matter, in view of the very strong feelings that are held throughout the country and, I think, by representatives of all Parties in this country? Could he not tell the House at this moment whether the latest proposals of Her Majesty's Government offer either some moderation in the speed of the rundown of the military forces or some increase in the aid which is being offered to Malta to enable her economy to readjust? Is he aware that most people feel that both these things should be done by Her Majesty's Government at the present time?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that no noble Lord will wish me to give any details about the proposals that have been put to the Government of Malta. I would say only that a very sincere attempt has been made to resolve the present difficulties, and I earnestly hope that the Malta Government will find it possible to make a positive response. The latest information is that they have not yet completed consultations with the Opposition in Malta, or
1384
with the trade unions concerned; but in the meantime, I understand, they are not proceeding with the amendment of the Visiting Forces Bill on Third Reading.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches do not wish to press the Government any further at this particular moment. We certainly hope that the conference between the two Governments that is now going on will be successful. I would ask the noble Lord whether, when he can make a further Statement informing the House of the results of the present conference between the parties, he will do so.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I shall be very glad to give further information when it is available.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL
3.49 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has guided us with very great clarity through the Bill now before us. In general, I thought he made the very best of the Bill. Perhaps that was quite natural, in that I think he feels that he has some responsibility for its parentage. To refer to some of the remarks he made earlier in his speech, it is perfectly true, of course, that there have been differences of opinion on the merits of this proposal within the Conservative Party, and apparently (although I did not know it until to-day) there have also been differences of opinion in the Liberal Party. Furthermore, it is still open to argument as to whether the establishment of a Parliamentary Commissioner will not do more harm than good.
For instance, the noble and learned Lord drew attention to the very considerable difficulties of introducing a personage of this kind to act in a country with a population of over 50 million; and I think one could point to other differences from those countries in which an Ombudsman of some sort or another has already been established. But I can say to-day that we have no opposition in principle to the establishment of a Parliamentary Commissioner. The noble

1385
and learned Lord also had some interesting things to say about Crown privilege. If I understood his views aright, I think I share them—though he had to be rather cautious how he phrased that part of his speech. My feeling is that, having driven a small wedge into this privilege in this Bill, I would hope that he will see to it that it is fairly well hammered home later on.
The noble and learned Lord gave us what I think was a very interesting account of the early history of the Ombudsmen, going back to Sweden in 1809; but I thought that he skated rather rapidly over the somewhat more chequered recent history of this particular Bill. It is true that a White Paper dealing with this subject was produced by Her Majesty's Government back in 1965, but I think I am right in saying that that particular White Paper was never debated in either House.
After last year's General Election, this particular Bill was introduced. But, even before it had been discussed in this House or in another place, the Government decided to set up the office of Parliamentary Commissioner on the assumption that Parliament would rubber-stamp their decision. This action drew a good deal of unfavourable comment at the time, including some severe criticism from the Estimates Committee, a Committee, as your Lordships know, made up of representatives of all Parties. As I understand it, the excuse for such precedure which was given at the time—and it has been the only excuse offered since—is that, if the Government had not acted as they did, there would have been a delay in setting up the Parliamentary Commissioner's Office. I must say that I find this a pretty feeble excuse. This particular proposal may or may not be the best method of protecting the citizens of this country against the excesses of bureaucracy; but the long-suffering and tolerant population of Britain has survived good and bad government in this country for several centuries, and my guess is that it could, with a calm bordering on indifference, have survived a few more months without having a Parliamentary Commissioner.
Now, at last, after having been, in my view, somewhat emasculated by the Government themselves in another place, the Bill comes here. As to its general pur-
1386
pose, I can personally see no good reason to quarrel with it. Whether it will satisfactorily achieve its purpose is, of course, another matter. It seeks to redress the balance of power between the Government and the governed in the latter's favour; and certainly no one can deny that extension of Government, and its attendant bureaucracy, has taken place on a massive scale throughout this century. It has certainly gathered pace under this particular Government, which I understand have recruited an extra 15,000 civil servants in two years and appointed a wholly unprecedented number of Ministers. There is no denying the fact that the ordinary citizen finds that his life is interfered with on a scale that must make Hampden and others turn in their graves.
I suggest, however, that the bulk of the population do not normally come much into contact with the Central Government. Far more often it is with local government, with local representatives of the National Health Service and with other forms of local officialdom. However, under this Bill all these are specifically excluded from investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner—perhaps for good reason, as the noble and learned Lord set out. But where the shoe pinches the general public most, no alleviation is offered under this Bill.
If a local planning authority seems to have acted unfairly, this Bill will provide no redress. If there seems to have been inordinate delay in the admission of a sick person to hospital, the matter cannot be investigated under the powers in this Bill. If someone claims to have been "roughed-up" by the police, the matter cannot be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner. Or, to take a topical case that I read about in the newspapers only yesterday, if a couple want to put central heating in their council house at their own expense and the local housing committee refuses to let them, the chairman saying, "It is a perfectly good house without bothering with central heating", they can expect no help from the Parliamentary Commissioner. In fact, all the petty tyrannies of local officialdom which most frequently affect the lives of people are excluded from investigation under the Bill. None of this area is covered.

1387
On the other hand, the citizen can, it is true, seek redress if he feels that there has been "maladministration" by any of the Government Departments and Government bodies listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. Schedule 2 to this Bill makes interesting—and I find, sometimes, rather comic—reading. It strikes me that it contains a good deal of padding in order to make the list look pretty impressive. For example, I do not think that many members of the general public in this country have found their lives made intolerable by a piece of maladministration in the Foreign Office or, for that matter, in the Central Office of Information. Even fewer are likely to have fallen foul of the Lord President's Office or the Public Records Office or the Stationery Office. There is, of course, the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources—and I understand that a Motion was moved in another place yesterday to abolish it. That was, of course, the Ministry set up by the Labour Government after the 1964 Election. Also on the list is the Royal Mint. I must confess that I have now lived more than half my life, but I have never had a row with the Royal Mint, nor have I met anybody in this country who has had a row with the Royal Mint. But the truth is that Schedule 2 contains a good deal of window dressing, and I think the same comment might fairly be made about the Bill as a whole.
But, my Lords, let us look for a moment at those Departments listed in Schedule 2 which do have a more direct and frequent impact on the lives of the general public. To what extent does the Bill provide a means of redress of grievance by the general public? It seems to me that it would depend very much on how we define and interpret the word "maladministration". I think that the noble and learned Lord conceded that this was a point of difficulty. Certainly this was a point which gave rise to long debate in another place without, it seemed to me, anyone being very much wiser at the end of it. Speaking for myself, I should be immensely grateful if we could be given, first, a simple example of a grievance likely to be submitted by an individual for investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner; secondly, an explanation as to in what respect the action complained of might be due to
1388
maladministration and, thirdly, even if it was due to maladministration, how it could be determined that this was not due to the
"exercise of a discretion vested in the department or authority".
I have taken those words, of course, from Clause 5(4) a subsection which, as the noble and learned Lord said, was inserted by the Government at a late stage in the passage of the Bill through another place, and which seems to me to give the Bureaucracy a loophole as large as the Round Tower of Windsor. If it is not the case, I, for one, should be most grateful to have it explained to me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? I gave two or three examples of a variety of causes which might result in one man getting a chair and not another, or the Board of Trade refusing to allow somebody to start an insurance business. There is a discretion at the end, but this does not in any way stop a Parliamentary Commissioner from investigating all the circumstances of a case.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, may I say that it is not the Round Tower of Windsor about which we are concerned: it is the Leaning Tower of Pisa which we want to avoid.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, that is as may be. I listened carefully to the Lord Chancellor's examples, but I was still not convinced that it was beyond the wit of civil servants to argue that whatever action was taken was under a discretion. I quite see that this is the exact point over which there is likely to be a good deal of argument in future. We certainly do not suggest that there should be an appeal against every policy and discretionary decision of Ministers, which I think was a phrase used by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I think that the definition of what is maladministration, and how it could in certain cases be seen to be different from the exercise of discretion, remains unclear to me and seemed to remain unclear to a whole number of people in another place after a great deal of debate.
In spite of the fact that the name given to the British version of the Ombudsman is the Parliamentary Commissioner, as the noble and learned

1389
Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, he will in practice act at the behest of only one House of our Parliament. He will not be allowed to entertain complaints from your Lordships, but only from Members of the House of Commons—though no doubt it would be quite in order to ask for a personal grievance to be forwarded to the Parliamentary Commissioner by a Member of Parliament of any noble Lord's choice. I must say that I do not quite know why this exclusion of the House of Lords was thought necessary. I appreciate that it is important that the Commissioner should not be overburdened at an early stage in his existence. What I should like to feel is that noble Lords were not excluded because the Government thought your Lordships could be less well trusted than Members of Parliament to use in a responsible manner the machinery set up under this Bill.
This Bill purports to give some protection to the governed against the misuse of power by the Executive Government and its minions. The principle seems to me unexceptionable. What worries me about it is that in practice it is likely to give little protection at a rather high cost. Indeed in the Explanatory Memorandum the cost is put at not more than £150,000 in the first year. What little the citizens will gain on this "swing" will be lost many times over on the "roundabout" of further Socialist legislation. Nothing could be more plain than that such legislation will progressively increase the powers of the Executive to interfere with every aspect of our daily lives, and this Bill provides no more than a mini-buffer against this trend. We should, I am sure, all wish to share the high hopes of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for this Bill. We hope that those are justified in practice, but it strikes me as a rather feeble and tepid Bill, and therefore it deserves a rather tepid welcome in your Lordships' House.
4.7 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am sure that we are all obliged to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for having given us the historical background and for having outlined the Bill with the clarity we are accustomed to having from him. I think it somewhat
1390
ironical that the way in which the Office was set up and the first Commissioner appointed has led to a protest from the Estimates Committee. After all, the intention is to create a bulwark between the citizen and the Executive, and to carry out the other objects referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But we are told by the Estimates Committee that the method of appointment is creating a precedent which might lead to future abuses of power. As I say, that seems a little ironical and rather unfortunate. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, the Bill has had rather a bad Press in the last fortnight, which I think arises from the feeling that the proposals in the Bill fall so far sort of what was expected. There is some point in the complaint that the Government are setting up not an Ombudsman but an "ombudsmouse"—a slight variation on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech.
Of course I shall be told, my Lords, that it is neither, that it is a Parliamentary Commissioner. But it is important that the Parliamentary Commissioner should not be fenced round with too many limitations on his powers of investigation. I would, however, say this to the critics of the Bill: it is important to be consistent. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned the officers and members of the Committee of Justice, perhaps as a postscript I might add that one of the members of the Whyatt Committee is a cousin of mine; but I hope that does not affect my objectivity in studying this problem.
When the Whyatt Committee reported in 1961, it provided an excellent opportunity for the Government of the day to do something about this. But, unfortunately, nothing was done and the proposal to set up a Parliamentary Commissioner was turned down flat. It seems to be perfectly consistent for someone to object to this idea, and therefore to object to the Bill; but it seems inconsistent to have refused to do anything about this proposal and now to complain that the Bill does not go far enough. I am one who welcomed the Whyatt Report, although perhaps it was in some respects rather too cautious. I think I am right in saying that the proposal that there should be a Parliamentary

1391
Commissioner has been advocated by the Liberal Party for many years, although I recognise that there were some who thought that the idea was not sufficiently radical. But for those who believe that the basic idea is sound, it is clear that the right attitude to this Bill should be one of endeavour to amend it and improve it, so that we create in this new office a really important Parliamentary reform and a reform in the realm of the protection of the individual. I do not think that this is a Bill which should be thrown out, even though we may not be successful in all the Amendments that are put forward.
Furthermore, I would agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he said, on August 4 of last year, in reply to a Question of mine, that we must prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner from being overwhelmed at the outset of his duties. But that reasonable desire must not be used to exclude from the functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner the majority of complaints of the kind we know from experience are likely to arise. That is really what this debate is about. Therefore I would direct my remarks to some of the categories of complaint which are being excluded from the investigations of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Among these exclusions are complaints against local authorities; complaints put forward through any channel other than that of a Member of another place; complaints involving the exercise of discretion, which raises a very important issue; complaints against nationalised industries and bodies such as regional hospital boards, and complaints for which there is a remedy in law. I think that that is a fair summary of the category of exclusions, and I should like to touch briefly on each of these.
So far as local complaints are concerned, the kind of advisory services that have been set up in Bristol are suitable for dealing with a number of complaints, but not with those which really go to the heart of any local maladministration, I do not think that the employee of a local authority is the right person to tackle a complaint where a serious allegation of maladministration is made. In an Appendix to the Whyatt Report, the Committee stated that they had found that the administrative processes in local
1392
government followed a similar pattern to those in central Government. While it was not practicable for the Committee to indicate the volume of complaints of maladministration against local authorities, they said:
"The opinion was expressed by several persons of experience in public affairs whose responsibility and judgment in these matters command respect that there was probably a serious amount of mal-administration in local government and certainly considerable more than in the central Government Departments."
All these categories are excluded for all time. It is not a question of adding this type of complaint later, when the Parliamentary Commissioner has settled into his duties. I understand that the Bill is so drawn that complaints of that nature are excluded altogether.
It is the view of many Members of another place that the great majority of complaints they receive are of a local nature. I am aware that there are practical difficulties in extending the functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner to dealing with local complaints. A constituent may first write to his M.P. about some problem in which his local authority was involved. If the Parliamentary Commissioner was able to deal with this kind of complaint, it would be passed on to him. He would then have to appoint some regional commissioner to investigate the complaint and report back to him. He would report back to the Member of Parliament, who again would report back to the constituent. I can see that that is a roundabout procedure, and it was partly for that reason that, on October 18 of last year, I introduced a Bill with the object of setting up separate machinery for dealing with local complaints at regional level. At that time I was anxious that there should be some opportunity in this House on Committee stage of dealing with this problem, so that we should have discussed it before we came to tackle this Bill. But noble Lords who were present will recollect that a formidable Labour-Conservative coalition defeated my Bill on Second Reading.
Although the Bill was killed, the problem still remains. It is not sufficient answer to say that we must wait for the Royal Commission or for the Report of the Maude Committee. Some kind of machinery must be devised for dealing with this large number of local complaints, some of which cannot well be

1393
dealt with by some employee of a local authority. I am considering whether an Amendment might be tabled to this Bill so that at least this could be discussed.
The Bill further excludes complaints from anyone other than Members of another place. I would question whether it is necessary to exclude Members of your Lordships' House. It puts Members of this House in a somewhat anomalous position. Of course, we do not receive nearly as many complaints as Members of another place, but if anyone made a genuine complaint to a Member of the House that might well be looked into, the noble Lord would have to write saying that it could be dealt with only by a Member in another place and asking to which Member the complainant wished his complaint to go. Then, when he received a reply the noble Lord would have to write to that Member of another place. This seems to be unduly complicated. I do not think that it should lead to conflict between the two Houses if Members of this House were able to forward complaints directly to the Parliamentary Commissioner. After all, we already have had an Amendment to Clause 1(3), which deals with the removal from office of the Parliamentary Commissioner. This would require an Address from both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, there has been a breach in the limitation to another place in that respect.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Perhaps he would like to give the House the reason for it.
LORD WADE: My Lords, as the noble Lord is going to take part in the debate, perhaps he would let us know. I do not wish to prolong my speech.
I wish to turn now to the important question of the exercise of discretion. I am aware that a distinction was made in the Whyatt Report between acts of maladministration and acts arising out of exercising discretion. There is some difficulty in drawing the line, but your Lordships must remember that a large part of the work of nearly all Government Departments and authorities is discretionary in nature. I feel that this provision in the Bill will be used as a protection by Government Departments against any awkward investigations. I certainly would advocate the deletion
1394
of subsection (4) of Clause 5, which reads as follows:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Commissioner to review by way of appeal any decision taken by a government department or other authority in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority."
I am aware that there is some room for difference of opinion as to the effect of including the words "to review by way of appeal". But, however one interprets that, I think that this proviso, coupled with other provisions in the Bill excluding anything in the nature of the exercise of a discretion, is unfortunate.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He has twice said that this Bill limits the rights of the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate. He has not yet given an example of a right to investigate in the field with which he is concerned. The subsection that he has just quoted does not limit his right to investigate.
LORD WADE: I will give an illustration in a few moments. It does, however, limit the subject matter which can be investigated. Furthermore, it limits the category of complaint which can be forwarded to the Parliamentary Commissioner for investigation. That is certainly my interpretation of the Bill; and I may say that my noble and learned friend Lord McNair, whose views I always listen to with great respect, has sent me this comment: that he regards this particular proviso as most dangerous. I hope, therefore, that it will be further discussed, either in this debate or on the Committee stage.
Fourthly, there are excluded (I hope I am right in using the word "excluded") the actions of nationalised industries, and various boards, such as regional hospital boards—and the subject of regional hospital boards was debated somewhat fully in another place. I am not very happy about these exclusions. May I give an illustration to show how this will work? —and it is only an illustration. There was recently a case in Eastbourne. As I understand it, a circular was sent from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to British Railways asking them to offer land which they did not require to local authorities. In the light of that request, British Railways offered land at

1395
Eastbourne, with, I think, 48 houses on it, to the local authority at a price very much lower than the occupiers of the houses would have been willing to pay; and many of the occupiers wanted to buy the houses to become owner-occupiers. But the land was sold over their heads to the local authority. As a result, the houses became derestricted and lost the benefit of the Rent Restrictions Act. The local authority were unwilling to sell any of the houses to the occupiers, and proceeded to put up the rent.
To take that step by step, so far as the circular from the Ministry is concerned, that may be an act of discretion—I am not sure. But if it is an act of administration, I do not think that, on the face of it, it is maladministration merely to authorise, request or direct British Railways to sell land to a local authority. So far as British Railways are concerned, they are excluded from the Parliamentary Commissioner's scope because they are a nationalised industry, and there can be no complaint against them for selling over the heads of the occupiers. So far as the local authorities are concerned, there can be no complaint against them, because that kind of complaint is excluded from the Bill. I think this indicates the way in which there will be a limitation on the kind of complaints—and they are very real complaints—that will be excluded.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, this is rather a difficult illustration, because when the matter was raised in this House on the 1962 Bill (it may have occurred before the noble Lord came to this House), when Mr. Marples was Minister of Transport, I think, there was an addition to the Bill, against the wishes of the Tory Government, that the Railways Board should offer to local authorities all land that became available. That addition was inserted by this House.
LORD WADE: I am interested in the observation of the noble Lord, but I do not think it materially affects the point that I was making.
The other matter that I mentioned was regarding complaints where there is a remedy at law. It seems to me reasonable that complaints of that nature should be excluded. On the other hand, there are some cases where, in spite of the fact that there is a remedy at law, it is
1396
I think proper that the Parliamentary Commissioner, if he thinks fit, should have the opportunity of making an investigation. Here I would offer a small bouquet to the Government, because in Clause 5(2) there is this proviso:
"Provided that the Commissioner may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the person aggrieved has or had such a right or remedy if satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect him to resort or have resorted to it."
It so happens that this would appear to have been lifted straight out of my Bill. It may be a coincidence, but it is almost word for word the proviso in my Bill. So my Bill, although defeated, may have served some useful purpose. It was not in the original Government Bill; the proviso was inserted on the Report stage in another place.
I should like to make one or two other, I hope constructive, comments. In Clause 10 there is the question of publishing a report. I am not sure whether a report in the Press, or a summary of a report to Parliament published in the Press, would be covered so far as qualified privilege is concerned. I merely raise this as a question which requires consideration. Then there may be circumstances in which a report of a particular case to Parliament may not be the best method of dealing with an issue which has been investigated. Parliament may be very busy, and there may be a case where there is a genuine difference of view between a civil servant and the Parliamentary Commissioner as to whether there has been maladministration. In this limited number of cases I think it might be helpful to have some procedure by which there could be an application to the High Court by way of case stated, so that the issue between the civil servant and the Parliamentary Commissioner could be considered in a judicial atmosphere. I do not think that this would be any derogation of the supremacy of Parliament.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I do not think he really understands the Bill. The decision as to whether there has been maladministration, and the right to state an opinion on it, rests with the Parliamentary Commissioner. It is not within the powers of civil servants to prevent him treating it in this way.
LORD WADE: I agree. The civil servant cannot prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner from reporting in a particular case to Parliament, and the Bill provides that the Parliamentary Commissioner may so report, if he thinks fit. Nevertheless there may be circumstances where there is a genuine difference of view—and it may not be made public—between the department and the Parliamentary Commissioner as to whether or not there is maladministration, and I should have thought that it might be helpful to have some procedure where a case could be stated, so that this difference of view could be settled in a judicial atmosphere. I understand that my noble friend Lord Reay has an alternative procedure to suggest on this particular point. I merely say that I think it is a point worth considering in Committee.
There are two other points on Schedule 3. When one comes to extending the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner, I would favour omitting Clause 8, the clause that includes regional hospital boards and other bodies in the exclusions. I would bring them in, but not necessarily at this moment. Also, I think we might consider whether superannuation should be brought into the sphere of the Parliamentary Commissioner's activities at present excluded under paragraph 10 of Schedule 3.
There are many complaints of injustices in connection with superannuation. But returning to the original point, and with this I close, I think there is no doubt that many people are concerned about this growing power of the Executive. This setting up of a Parliamentary Commissioner is only one method of helping to safeguard the individual from injustice. It would be a pity if it were to fail through too much caution and too many limitations.
4.31 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill without qualification. My noble and learned friend has referred to his long-standing interest in this subject, and I want to claim that I have an even longer-standing interest, because since 1922 until fairly recently I attended what is known as a weekly "surgery" of constituents, who treated me as being omniscient enough to solve all the problems that were confronting them. I used to get an average of 30 people an even-
1398
ing, and it is interesting to recollect the kind of cases that came along. I do not remember any cases of maladministration by the Civil Service. There may have been, but I cannot remember them. There were a few cases of maladministration, or alleged maladministration, by local authorities.
I was impressed all the time by the fact that where these cases occurred, by reason of the increasing impact upon the citizen of action by local authorities and governments, there was no effective remedy in the last resort. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred to the possibility of the Parliamentary Question, and of the Adjournment debate, if you are lucky enough to get one. But there is very keen competition, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and others who have been in the other House know, to get a time for an Adjournment Motion, and one may have to wait a very long time. Then it is, as one knows, dealt with very late at night, within half an hour as a rule, with a reply by the Parliamentary Secretary. If one is lucky and one is supported in one's Motion by one's friends, or opponents, the Parliamentary Secretary is given exactly two minutes in which to reply, so you get no effective reply at all. That is the end of the matter. One is left with a grievance.
This Bill is the beginning of an attempt to carry the matter further, and to supplement whatever is possible under our Parliamentary procedure. I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made it clear that this provision is not intended to be a substitute for action by Members of Parliament; it is intended to be supplementary and used as a last resort. I know it does not go very far. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, referred to it as a minibus. Even a minibus is better than having to walk. It is at least a form of transport and you can get somewhere with it. In all the years during which this has been recognised as necessary we did not have even a minibus.
I believe that it is right we should be cautious. This is revolutionary. I do not think we can go very much by the experience of the Scandinavian countries or of New Zealand; each of them has differences in their Constitution, and above all in their population,

1399
and in the complexities of their systems of Government, which do not apply to this country. There is therefore a limit to what we can learn from their experience. So I am wholeheartedly in favour of a beginning in the form in which this Bill has been prepared. I should have hoped, however, that it would be possible—and this is a matter which we can discuss in Committee—by an Order in Council to extend not only the scope of the Bill but the powers as well. I mean by that that at the present time action can be initiated only by a Member of Parliament. I would hope that if we found it expedient, we might extend it to Members of this House, and we might even give to the Parliamentary Commissioner himself the power to initiate an inquiry. As I read the Bill, he himself has no power to initiate an inquiry at all, although under the New Zealand Bill the Ombudsman can initiate an inquiry, and any member of the public can go direct to him and ask him to initiate it. I am not suggesting that that should be provided in this Bill, except possibly we should give the Parliamentary Commissioner the right to initiate an inquiry himself. I think that would be a useful extension. As to further extensions, I would not recommend them at this stage.
I would hope that it might be possible to include in the Bill power to make an Order in Council to extend the functions of the Land Commissioner in those respects, by allowing Members of this House to put forward a request, and in other ways.
I said that, in my own experience—and I am sure it is matched by many others—the vast majority of cases of maladministration arise in respect of local authorities, and I shall be very interested to discuss the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has in mind. I think it would be well worth while to discuss it and see whether it is really practicable to introduce an Amendment into this Bill, or at least to make it possible, at some future time, to extend the Bill to local authorities, without having to introduce fresh legislation.
I agree with the Whyatt Report that the number of cases of maladministration we are likely to get in the Civil Service
1400
will be relatively few. But I recognise that, although this is not a political Bill, and ought not to give rise to political speeches, it is the duty of an Opposition, if they cannot oppose the principle of a Bill, to make derogatory remarks about it; and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, was only doing his duty in minimising the effect of the Bill and jeering at it, making comic comments about the Royal Mint, and other bodies that are included. I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to justify the inclusion of the Royal Mint in the list. It seems to me it was a sensible thing to include all bodies which are under the direct control of the Government. Why the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, should imagine that there could be no cases of maladministration at the Royal Mint, I do not know. There may not be many, but it is conceivable.
Incidentally, the noble Lord found some difficulty in distinguishing between maladministration and questions of discretion. I do not think there is any difficulty. The Whyatt Committee found no difficulty in distinguishing between them, but I should like to read to the House what the Committee said about maladministration. I think the noble Lord will agree that, put in this form, there should not be any difficulty in recognising what is maladministration, although admittedly there may be marginal cases and a case of maladministration may taper off into a case of discretion. In all aspects of human activity there are marginal cases which cause difficulty. It would be for the Parliamentary Commissioner to decide for himself whether a case falls within the category of maladministration or discretion, and I hope he will not have too many of them.
Paragraph 72 of the Whyatt Report says:
"The complaints with which we deal are complaints of official misconduct in the sense that the administrative authority responsible for the act or decision complained of has failed to observe proper standards of conduct and behaviour when exercising his administrative powers. This may take a variety of different forms. It may take the form of an abuse of power by an administrative authority, as for example, when a public official behaves oppressively towards a person who has been lawfully placed in his custody, or it may happen that an administrative authority misuses its power. For instance, a public official may show an unfair preference when allocating a Government contract"—

1401
it may even happen in the Royal Mint—
"or again, official misconduct may cause loss or damage to a citizen through inefficiency, negligence or error on the part of the official handling his rights or interests."
I am sure that these are cases which are easily recognisable and should not, generally speaking, cause difficulty to the Parliamentary Commissioner. I would say to the Government, as I say on all Bills on Second Reading, that I hope they will listen and be receptive to Amendments which will be moved on their merits.
This is a good Bill. The noble and learned Lord said that he did not think there was much wrong with it; and granted that this is a first step I would agree with him. Nevertheless, the combined wisdom of this House may find ways of dealing with problems which we recognise as problems, which are not being dealt with in this Bill, and I hope that if we can find ways of improving it we shall not stand on our dignity, or the fact that the other place has passed this Bill in its present form and that no material change is possible. I wish this Bill a speedy passage into law, and I am confident that it will be to the public interest that such should be the case.
4.45 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who speaks from a great depth of Parliamentary experience. He welcomes this Bill because, as he said, it provides a weapon of last resort for the Member of Parliament. I do not welcome the Bill because I think that is precisely what it is not going to do, but at the same time I hope I shall not lose the sympathy of the noble Lord on that account, because I suspect that he will find me a worthy ally in the Committee stage in his attempts to improve the Bill for the benefit of Parliament and for the benefit of the people. I hope also that if I criticise he will not think I am making derogatory or jeering remarks, which my noble friend certainly was not doing either. Thank heavens some noble Lords can enliven their speeches with a little delicate humour (which should not be taken amiss) as indeed the noble Lord can himself.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord might try that himself.
LORD REDMAYNE: It is very properly said that I might try it, but I take far too serious a view of this matter to attempt anything of the sort.
The Justice Report and subsequently the Government's White Paper and, I think, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor to-day, have all stressed and confirmed the tradition that the redress of grievances is the duty of Members of Parliament and the function of Parliament itself, and I do not think we dispute that. I do not want to-day, and indeed it would not be in order, to embark on a discourse on those reforms which might be expected to strengthen that tradition, but I would say that I believe that the more devices are contrived to remove the real work of Parliament from the direct view of the public and of the Press, the weaker will the traditions and the functions of Parliament become.
If this Bill achieves its purpose at all —and I do not even share the mild optimism of my noble friend Lord Harlech—it will, I believe, at the same time lead to a further deterioration in the position and reputation of the elected Member of Parliament, whose business it is to fight the battles of his constituents, both on their own merits and for the principles involved, and to fight those battles against Her Majesty's Ministers, or, by his actions, win their willing or unwilling support. It is only by that type of Parliamentary battle that the elected Member of Parliament really justifies his existence at all. I share this view at least with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that only in the very last resort is any further weapon necessary—or so it should be.
It has been freely said during the course of this Bill in another place, and indeed in the Justice Report and elsewhere, that Question Time, the Adjournment Debate and the debates in Supply are the proper sounding-boards for grievances. The same applies in your Lordships' House, with the exception of Supply; and as a very new recruit to your Lordships' House, I would say, with respect, that the more deliberate pace of the Starred Question and the greater opportunity for debate of the Unstarred Question enables your Lordships to be just as effective in pursuit of grievances as the other place, and I think that should

1403
be acknowledged. In addition, of course, Members of both Houses are given the right—the courtesy—of access personally or in writing to Ministers, and to my mind little will be added to that system by the additional facility of the Parliamentary Commissioner in the form proposed by the Bill, and I will say something about other forms in due course. In point of fact, I think it will detract from the opportunities available in both Houses by debasing the currency. A great number of your Lordships have been elected Members of Parliament in the past. They will know the pressures that are exerted by the electors on the elected Member and, as they will recollect and as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will recollect, very often the less just the cause, the greater the pressure.
The system which the Government have in their wisdom ordained is that any Member of Parliament, though ostensibly charged with judging the propriety of any request to submit a case to the Commissioner, can be forced by a kind of Party political blackmail into accepting that request, by the threat spoken or implied that if he refuses it will be taken to another Member, of course of another Party. This was made very clear by the Lord President of the Council in another place. Of course, it has always been a convention that one Member of Parliament does not poach on the constituency preserves of another, and that convention is observed fairly strictly between members of the same Party, less strictly between members of opposing Parties. In any case, no great harm is done because usually the Member himself has done his best and failed, and if he has done his best and failed it is seldom that another Member succeeds better, and very often one gains both on the swings and on the roundabouts as the sitting Member who has been treated in that way.
If I may say so, this system about which we are talking now is quite different. What we are talking about now is a straight question put to the elected Member of Parliament, "Will you, or will you not, put my case to the Commissioner?" If he will not, and for good reason will not, he knows that the same question will be put to some other Member, and likely as not will receive a different answer. Indeed, it may al-
1404
ready have been put to another Member or any number of other Members, and that seems to me to be bad.
It may seem to your Lordships, particularly to those of your Lordships who have not been elected Members of Parliament, that a Member of Parliament should be strong enough to resist that kind of persuasion, and indeed you will be assured, I do not doubt, by the noble Lord from the Government Bench that the Select Committee which is to be set up will devise conventions by which it can be avoided. I must confess that in these circumstances I put little faith in those conventions. They will be devised with good will, but I believe they will fail. The truth of the matter will be, I think, that this system of application to a Member for his consent to put a case to the Parliamentary Commissioner will become as cheap, as little thought of in the public estimation as—and I mean no disrespect to the medical profession—many doctors' certificates of unfitness to work, which are issued under the same sort of duress. What is going to happen is this. Either Members will exercise their discretion too loosely and the Commission will be flooded with unnecessary and unacceptable cases, or, against those—and there will be many—who stand up to defend their discretion against the importunate claimant there will be this pressure, this blackmail brought.
I would say this. If there were any need for a Parliamentary Commissioner —and I accept that there is a need as a weapon of last resort—it would have been better that a Select Committee itself should sift such cases, which in the last resort, all proper Parliamentary action and measures having been taken, might be thought by the Member concerned—and I think it should be the Member concerned—to be worthy of reference to this final arbiter. I think in that way the system would work. As it is, I am perfectly certain that the proper Parliamentary means—Question, letter, Adjournment Debate, all the rest of it—will be neglected for this easier method of redress proposed in the Bill.
What happens if the case is not accepted by the Commissioner? In my opinion, so far as the constituent is concerned that will be the end of the case, because no Question, no Adjournment

1405
Debate thereafter is going to receive anything but the scantiest attention from the Minister. So the fact is that, for all the talk of humanising the Administration and improving relations with the citizen, it is extremely doubtful if these things are going to be achieved.
In any case, if one looks at the situation as it has been in Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows, 90 per cent. of all the cases that come to elected Members of Parliament are satisfactorily resolved if they are painstakingly handled, resolved at least in the sense that the constituent, though aggrieved, is satisfied that he has received a sensible and studied answer. You can well say that is all he very often gets, but none the less he is well satisfied if it has been painstakingly handled. Indeed, in nine cases out of ten he will receive no more from the Parliamentary Commissioner than a sensible and studied answer. The 10 per cent. who are not satisfied, if it is as many—and I rather doubt whether it will be as many—might well be taken further—that I agree—but under some much tighter system than this Bill envisages and only after every Parliamentary opportunity had been tried by the constituent's Member of Parliament. That then is the way I look at this Bill. It can hardly be said that I regard it, as drafted, with any great favour, but I believe that only in the circumstances which I have described could it be said that the system would fulfil a useful purpose without detriment to the traditions of Parliament and the standing of the elected Member.
Having said that—and I say it with great conviction and with no wish to be merely destructive as a Member who does not support the Government—I will not weary your Lordships with a great deal of detailed criticism of the Bill, though I accept that since we have got it we have to amend it, and I hope we shall amend it fruitfully. I, as a novice Member of your Lordships' House, think it a great pity that the Government have set their face against any access to the Commissioner by your Lordships individually. Much play has been made of the suggestion that "Parliamentary" in the words of the Commissioner's title relates to another place. I think—and I say this without particular disrespect or malice—that on the whole this is a studied slight of your Lordships' House.
1406
As I have said, it certainly is not justified on your Lordships' record, in that your procedures and your experience are as fully used to the discussion of grievances, whether personal or general, as the other place's; and, after all, your Lordships have the great advantage of not being subject to those electoral pressures which are apt to unbalance the judgment of the elected Member.
Further, if I may say this, I think your Lordships are particularly qualified to have access to the Parliamentary Commissioner in this respect. It is specifically written into the Bill that corporate bodies have aright to lodge complaints, corporate bodies as opposed to individual constituents. I would guess that corporate bodies, companies in industry and commerce, might well find very often a much more ready ear in your Lordships' House than in another place, certainly an ear which would be less likely to be prejudiced, as I say, by political considerations.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dilated on the fact that Members in another place were happier helping their fellow-men. I do not know why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his Government should wish to deprive your Lordships of that happiness. May I say also that it should be noted that Justice, in a later comment on its Report, quite definitely expressed itself in favour of your Lordships having access to a Parliamentary Commissioner. I hope, too, in this connection that it is not suggested that your Lordship, will not be able to debate the Reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner, which may indeed often be of most considerable constitutional importance. One can see a situation, perhaps, in which a Government were slow to act on the recommendations of the Commissioner worded in his Report, and it might well be that your Lordships would wish to prompt the Government to action in that respect. I believe, therefore, that your Lordships would be fully justified in carrying an Amendment to repair this position, and I believe also that it should be supported by those noble Lords opposite who are not content to be regarded as second-class Parliamentarians.
I think enough has been said about the exclusions from this Bill. Any inquiry that I can make, both from ex-Ministers

1407
and from distinguished ex-civil servants, suggests that, in spite of the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord, the Amendment to omit matters which are at the discretion of Ministers seems to leave little in the Bill for the Commissioner to do. One exclusion to which attention has not been drawn this evening, although some attention was given to it in another place, is that which is contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3, which refers to the contractual and commercial transactions of any Government Department or authority to which this Act applies; and, by reference to Clause 6 of the Bill, to any local authority, nationalised industry or any other body appointed by Government; the sole exception being to certain transactions in land. In brief, what it says is that nothing contractual or commercial done by the Government, or any of its agents, is capable of reference to the Commissioner.
Although I have referred to the fact that corporate bodies had been included in the Bill, and that your Lordships might play some part in representing their complaints to the Commissioner if that was in due course written into the Bill, we can see now that the Government have successfully drawn the teeth of that tiger in advance. I think that the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council that local government might devise a similar system for itself is really absurd. What is more, I consider that it is definitely part of the constitutional business of Parliament to devise such a system for local government.
Both in another place and to-night in your Lordships' House, much stress has been laid on the fact that the great bulk of complaints that come to the elected Member deals with local government matters. We all know very well what happens. A complaint comes to a Member of Parliament, he takes it to a Minister and, in nine cases out of ten, the Minister disclaims responsibility, which may be true according to the Statute, or simply expresses a disinclination to interfere in matters delegated to local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, who is not here at the moment, referred to an unholy alliance between the Government
1408
side and my noble friends to defeat his Bill, which had an object of providing a solution to this problem in local government. I would assure the noble Lord in his absence, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his presence, that I am perfectly prepared to enter into an unholy alliance with the objective of seeing whether some solution can be found.
With regard to exclusions generally, I have noted that Ministers have frequently made reference to the possibility of amendment by Order in Council, as, indeed, did the noble and learned Lord. This, I think, is a trap or a deception for the critic of the Bill, because of course such an Order in Council can be initiated only by the Government, and the Government must in due course be under all the pressures of persuasion which have been exercised in the debate on this Bill before they are ever likely to take any action in that respect. I do not think that it offers a fruitful field.
Finally, may I say that I think the Government have missed an opportunity, which they may well regret, in not accepting the suggestion which was made in another place that it should be written into the Bill that the Parliamentary Commissioner might well provide an acceptable alternative to a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act. Here again, it was suggested by the Government that this could be done in emergency by Order in Council. Indeed, on the Government's initiative, it could. But with some unhappy knowledge of previous occasions on which such a procedure has been required by Governments, I can tell the Government that if the need arises they will find themselves embarrassed by the debate on the Order, prior to the inquiry, and wishing with hindsight that they had written the necessary conditions into the Bill. Perhaps I am well qualified to give that advice.
I think this is a bad Bill. I think it is based on a misconception of what is required. In a sense, Parliament over the years has brought the need for it on itself. But that does not commend the Bill if it provides no real solution to the troubles of Parliament, or in fact increases them, as I think it will, by decreasing the status of the elected Member. For that solution we shall have to look much further than these glowing phrases about

1409
humanising the administration and improving relations with the citizen. In the long run, this Bill will do neither.
5.7 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I find myself in considerable disagreement with the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. One or two aspects I would propose to deal with, but in general I welcome this Bill, and I greatly welcome the appointment of Sir Edmund Compton. Some of the limitations I am not happy about, and two of these I should like to come to later in my remarks. Others are probably Committee points. Somehow, I still prefer the title of Ombudsman, although I appreciate that this is a foreign word. Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration seems a trifle unwieldly. I do not know whether there are any other noble Lords here who will agree with me.
One particular point on which I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, is on what he had to say about pressure. Speaking personally of another place, I can imagine no worse recommendation than going to a Member of Parliament and saying, "If you do not do this, shall give it to somebody on the other side." I should have thought that if he felt like doing that, it would be tantamount to getting the Member to say, No. But apart from that, I just should not have thought that this was done. I really do not think that is correct. One may, of course, become more jaundiced as a Chief Whip than as a Back Bencher. That would not be for me to say. No doubt we all have our problems and our trials. But with regard to the putting down of Questions, or the taking up of matters—here I refer to another place—in another Member's constituency, quite honestly I am sure that those of my colleagues here on either side who were Members of another place will agree that this seldom happened. I think they will also agree that where it did, the Member concerned was not thought much of by parliamentarians on either side. Lastly —and this is one of the virtues of the other place—I think that we could all, on both sides, make a list of the people who did this and the lists would not differ. I really do not think that this happens, and I am equally sure that it would not be the case in this House,
1410
although, of course, we do not have the problem of constituencies.
As I am sure must have been obvious from time to time in this House, I am no student of the law, but some 17 months ago, in October, 1965, I thought that The Times commented most aptly, when it said of the position in this country that redress through the courts is impeded by technical procedural snags, by the settled reluctance of the Judiciary to be drawn into pronouncing on the merits of administrative disputes, and by the sheer expense of the process. I will put it in more simple language by quoting what the Evening Standard said in its City column on Monday last:
"The law does not always follow the dictates of common sense, and even when it does the road it takes can be expensive."
The more I read of cases in courts of law, the more I am convinced that expense alone would deter the bringing of a case, however right one may feel it to be. I do not know whether I dare suggest that possibly the Lord Chancellor would not dissent from that. I am certain that that is the opinion of laymen in these matters.
I am sure everyone in this House will agree that an M.P. with limited resources cannot match those of a Government Department and can well find himself baffled by those very resources. On the other hand, during my ten years in another place I found Departments very helpful indeed, on the whole, and this was my experience irrespective of which Party was in power. I think Members here will agree with me on that particular aspect. On the other hand, there may be cases, probably very few, where this might not be so and where a Parliamentary Commissioner would aid the power of an M.P. when he was protecting individuals. When I first raised the matter of an Ombudsman in your Lordships House in November, 1965, noble Lords said that I was wrong in declaring that complaints must reach the Ombudsman through Members of another place. Unfortunately, I was right. I say "unfortunately", because while at that time I was prepared to accept the position, I should like now to look at it more carefully, and I feel very cheered by those speakers who have preceded me in realising that they too would wish to look at this particular matter.

1411
As a former Member of another place I realise the difficulties. We were always very jealous of this responsibility to our constituents, and I agree with the Lord Chancellor that many of us in another place felt that it was in that field that we could do our best work. I am not suggesting for one moment, therefore, that this responsibility should be abrogated; but, on the other hand, there must be very few, if any, of your Lordships who, on receipt of a complaint by a member of the public, would not suggest that it be sent to the M.P. concerned or who would not discuss it with him. There can be the problem that a member of the public does not wish to approach the M.P. concerned, or has already approached him and has received an unsatisfactory answer. But anything like this could be discussed with the M.P. and action taken on the issue.
There is another type of complaint or query, and I hope that my noble friend Lady Summerskill will not mind my using her as an example. I did not give her notice, but I propose to say nice things and I am sure she will not mind. There are Members of this House who are especially well informed and who take a particular interest in certain matters. Lady Summerskill has done a great deal for women, and I can well visualise women writing to her and asking her whether she will take up some matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner. If she thought fit to do so, it would be a great loss if the Bill prevented such reference by my noble friend or anybody else similarly placed. Nobody here would abuse such a responsibility, and I should like reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner to be possible by Members of either House. I would gladly support the noble Lord, Lord Wade, or any other noble Lord who puts down an Amendment at a later stage to that effect.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is my noble friend suggesting that in such a case my noble friend Lady Summerskill should go straight to the Ombudsman, without first going to the Minister responsible?
BARONESS BURTON OE COVENTRY: I am suggesting that it be left to
1412
the infinite wisdom of my noble friend Lady Summerskill, who I am sure would do the right thing. It is the principle with which I am dealing at this moment.
Some 16 months ago I quoted the example of New Zealand which indicated that the Commissioner would not be deluged with complaints. I take the point made by the Lord Chancellor concerning the population of our respective countries, and it will be interesting to compare our early years with theirs. What is most important is the person appointed, and I have not met anyone who does not approve of the appointment of Sir Edmund Compton. I am sure everybody here realises that he certainly will command respect and willing co-operation from Parliament, civil servants and public alike. Not only do Members of both Houses understand that this co-operation will be forthcoming, but we appreciate Sir Edmund's qualifications on the other side, which is an essential qualification if this job is to be done properly. As past Comptroller and Auditor General he knows how we all work, how our minds work, how Departments work, and he knows how to get the answers. Those of us who have sat on Select Committees know that it is not always possible to get the answers, but Sir Edmund Compton knows how to do it.
At the beginning of these remarks I mentioned that I thought there were limitations, and I said that I should like to comment on two as I saw them. In October, 1965, while welcoming the White Paper, I felt that valuable time could well be given to considering the possibility of Ombudsmen or Commissioners at local level. I am quite convinced that this is what the general public would welcome. At that time I wondered what progressive local authorities felt on the matter: in other words, would those progressive local authorities who were then appointing city managers welcome the appointment of a City Ombudsman too? The word "Ombudsman" is now being used in quite a general sense and I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Shackleton, when he comes to reply, could help us in this particular matter.
For example, I read that the Consumer Advisory Service set up in Bristol by Bristol Corporation would deal with queries and complaints from all sections of the Bristol public, including those

1413
made against Government bodies and the Corporation. Because of this, officers of the Council have called the man responsible a local Ombudsman. He is Mr. Lavery Crook and he is also the city public relations officer. I have not pursued matters there since October last, but it would be useful if we could know how the Bristol experiment has fared, particularly in connection with queries and complaints involving public bodies or Bristol Corporation. Could my noble friend give us any information on the following points? Has this been a success? How many local authorities are doing likewise? Are the Government prepared to recommend the appointment of local Commissioners at the present time? I say "at the present time", because the Lord President of the Council, when speaking in a debate in another place on October 18 last, told the House, referring to local government, as I think my noble friend the Lord Chancellor has said, that in Sweden it took over a hundred years before the extension of the Ombudsman's powers to local government took place.
Mr. Crossman felt it was right that the Parliamentary Ombudsman should deal only with the area of ministerial and therefore of Parliamentary control, leaving it to elected local authorities to work out their own way of equipping their own councillors with an office designed to remedy the grievances of rate papers by a searching investigation. The Lord President hoped that the big authorities would make the experiment as soon as possible. I hope I am paraphrasing my noble friend the Lord Chancellor correctly—I am sure nobody would dare paraphrase him incorrectly—when I say that I gathered from his remarks that the Government supported action by local authorities on this matter. Therefore I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Shackleton whether the appointment of Ombudsmen or Commissioners at local level needs to be written into the Bill, or is it a matter for the local authority. Or, thirdly, could it simply be done by an Order in Council? If any of these actions need to be taken by the Government, would they consider an Amendment to this effect at the Committee stage of the Bill?
I now come to the second limitation which worries me at this stage in our
1414
general discussion. I really am quite nervous about this, because I think we should all agree that nobody can explain a matter more clearly than my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and if those of us listening to him do not understand him, then I am quite convinced it is our fault. But he must be well-accustomed to this, and I hope he will bear with me. I am happy because the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, could not understand either so at least I am the third and not the first.
I refer to Clause 5, subsection (4), to which reference has already been made. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already explained this matter, but although, like other Members of your Lordships' House who have a great interest in this subject, I have followed what happened in another place in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I just do not understand this point. This is the clause where the Commissioner has had taken out of his ambit—and I quote once more—
"any decision taken by a government department or other authority in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority."
I know that my noble friend Lord Shackleton has already had two tries at supplementing the explanation of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
I studied what the Minister said in another place on this matter and I gather from what he said that this Amendment was added to amplify or to make more explicit the word "maladministration" on page 3, line 28. If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lord Silkin say that "maladministration" is difficult to understand, I am not going to attempt to define it. But I am not happy about it. I am wondering whether my noble friend Lord Shackleton can, perhaps in layman's language, when he comes to wind up tell us whether the effect of this Amendment is that the Commissioner will be able only to enforce the rules, whether these be good or bad.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I try to help the noble Lady right away? The Parliamentary Commissioner

1415
has no power himself to enforce any rules at all.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I thought so. I am coming to that later. But could my noble friend also answer this one? Does not this Amendment, which is now part of the Bill, restrict the power of the Commissioner to cases in which the Minister has no discretion? That is how it seems to me; and if my noble friend could explain when he comes to wind up, it would certainly be a great help to me, at any rate. Does he wish to reply now?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the Minister has no discretion, it must surely then be a matter of law. If there is improper discretion, then this can be challenged. But, of course, the Parliamentary Commissioner is concerned with establishing whether there is maladministration, and for this purpose he can investigate any complaint. But if there is no discretion, and the Minister is merely carrying out some duty imposed upon him by Parliament, there will in fact be no question of maladministration.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in Order to ask the noble Lord a question arising out of that explanation. I will put my question to the noble Baroness and then I shall be in order. If a decision is taken by a Government Department or other authority in the exercise of a discretion, and the Parliamentary Commissioner thinks that that exercise of discretion has in some way been improperly carried out, is that maladministration? May I put that to the noble Baroness as a problem?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would care to answer that?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether I ought to go on with this chain reaction. But, clearly, if it has been improperly exercised it implies maladministration. I think the answer, therefore, is that if there has been an improper exercise of discretion, then there is a case on which the Parliamentary Commissioner will be able to pass judgment.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, at the risk of losing
1416
many friends, I will only say that I am glad I am not a lawyer and that I am in a much worse fog now than I was when I started to ask for the explanation. But probably after I have listened to other people the position will be a little clearer.
The other point I want to raise is that I am not happy about the exclusion in Clause 6(1)(a) of local government officers or the employees of nationalised industries; or the exclusion in Schedule 3, paragraph 8, of hospital boards. Having said that, I would explain that I do not, for one minute, suggest or think that the above would be offenders, but it is unfortunate that they are excluded. I feel that the general body of citizens in this country will not have a good impression conveyed to them by such exclusion. Speaking as a former Member of another place, I think that these are areas where a good deal of queries and complaints arise, and it is unfortunate that they should be excluded. Those are the only two limitations which I wish to discuss to-day. Doubtless we shall have a further chance in Committee.
I am not quite clear whether it is now settled that there will be a Commons Committee, with much the same relationship to the Parliamentary Commissioner as the Public Accounts Committee now has to the Comptroller and Auditor General. If it is so, I should have thought it would have considerable merit, because I assume that it would mean that such a Committee would be able to deal with important points of principle thrown up by investigations of the Commissioner. Although, quite rightly, this Committee would not be able to interfere with his work, presumably it would be able to raise any points of principle which seemed to an M.P. to have caused an unsatisfactory answer, and hence, ultimately, lead to necessary amendment of the law. It would be helpful—at least, I should find it so—if my noble friend could say something about that when he comes to wind up.
I have only one further comment and then I have done. I was glad to note that the Parliamentary Commissioner is to be an ex officio member of the Council on Tribunals. It has been a matter of concern to some of us for some time—those of us who are interested in this

1417
subject—that the Council has been worried about the difficulty of drawing a clear dividing line between their jurisdiction and that of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I know from discussions I have had that it has been felt that there is bound to be some overlap in their joint work. I was going to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but now, of course, I must ask my noble friend Lord Shackleton, whether he feels that this danger of overlapping has now been coped with satisfactorily by the action taken.
I wish the Parliamentary Commissioner well. I think we could have had no better appointment than Sir Edmund Compton. But I hope and I am sure, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, that the Government will listen to criticisms which are well meant for the success of this venture.
5.27 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise with a very great interest indeed to take part in this debate. We have had most interesting speeches from all sides, and, as often happens in your Lordships' House, the matters about which I am concerned and the questions which I shall ask and which will follow on those asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, are not perhaps so much on political divisions as on explanations of how this Bill is going to work. We have had a splendid fighting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, who really knows and appreciates the rights of individual Members of Parliament, and for that I respect him very much indeed.
I would support those of your Lordships who would like to see Members of the House of Lords included in the Parliamentary Commissioner's jurisdiction, so to speak. Since I became a Member of the House of Lords I have had a considerable number of letters, just as I am sure other Members have had. I communicate with the Government representatives in the House of Lords on those questions which are put to me, and often receive very satisfactory answers. I think it would be only right, if the Government so agree, that your Lordships should be included in this Bill, because I believe that we could make a contribution. The public sometimes, perhaps not to the same extent
1418
as to Members of the House of Commons, appeal to us to help them, and if we can do so it will give us as much satisfaction as we know it gives to Members of another place representing their constituents.
I am interested in the Bill in the first instance because I look upon it as one of the protections for the consumer, and I am, as I need not remind your Lordships, responsible at the moment for an organisation which protects consumers. I think it is a matter of great importance to find a solution to the problem of protecting the rights of individuals against the growth of modern bureaucracy. This problem has perplexed many Governments, not only the one we have to-day. At the time when this Bill was being discussed and talked about I hoped that we should find in it a powerful champion for the ordinary person, and I am a little disappointed that certain things have been left out—things which I believe to be of considerable importance. If I mention one or two of those things, I hope that perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to give us some reassurance.
To begin with, might I take the exclusions? I am very sorry, as I think is the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, that the National Health Service, the hospital service, has been excluded, because I think this is a matter which affects a great many of the citizens of this country. While one does not want to make life more difficult for doctors, for hospitals, or for anybody connected with the hospital service, I believe that the machinery of the National Health Service, the administration of the National Health Service, is something which the Ombudsman might very profitably be allowed to inquire into, for quite often it is most inadequate. Indeed, in the priority of candidates for the Ombudsman's protection, I would put the National Health Service very high in the list. The Regional Hospital Boards, too, are outside his jurisdiction under the Bill, and I would also bring these in.
Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I have read with care the discussions in another place, and I think it was on Report stage that the Government spokesman talked of an Ombudsman for the National Health Service alone. I would not be in favour of this.

1419
I think it would be unnecessary, and would add considerably to the bureaucratic machinery of the Parliamentary Commissioner—and this we want to keep to the minimum. I was not impressed by the arguments put forward by the Government spokesman on this aspect of the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to say that he is prepared to look at this again.
On Clause 5, subsection (4), upon which very much discussion has taken place in your Lordships' House this evening, I should like to add another request to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and perhaps I may express my views in the hope that I may receive some enlightenment about this, too. I quite understand that Clause 5, subsection (4), would be unworkable if every administrative decision could be opened up, and that this would, in effect. merely transfer the point of decision-making to the Ombudsman. Conversely, if the Ombudsman is to be shut out from investigating any administrative decision taken under powers giving a final and absolute discretion to the Administration, then this will exclude him from those very abuses with which he was created to deal in the first place. As the Bill stands, the Ombudsman can investigate only when a Minister is under a duty to take a decision and fails to do so. Where he takes positive action wrongly—and this is surely the origin of most grievances—he cannot be questioned. Where is the line to be drawn? From the consumers' point of view (in the widest sense of that word) it is surely essential that he should be able to investigate how decisions are arrived at. If he finds that any administrative discretion has been properly exercised and the correct procedures followed, then it should be for him to say, "This is not my concern". But my point is that it is the Ombudsman and not the Minister who should be empowered to decide whether or not the manner in which a decision is taken is according to the rules and is fair to all parties.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Baroness to say that this is precisely the position? It will be the Ombudsman who will decide.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: That is good. Then I have thrown light
1420
on something which I found very difficult to understand, and which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, who spoke before me, also found very difficult.
LORD SHACKLETON: Go on trying.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I never give up. If the Ombudsman can do this, if he can look over the Minister's shoulder, and if he can make a double check, then this section of the Bill is a safeguard to the consumer. If that is so, then my queries are not necessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: Not only can he look over the Minister's shoulder, he can also read his minutes and his files.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I thank the noble Lord. I am glad to know this. This is a matter of considerable importance. I will pass from that, because I have had my explanation from the Minister.
One of the other matters discussed in another place concerned the exclusion from the Bill of the Foreign Office and the Consular Service. I read with a good deal of interest the debate in another place on the exclusion of the Consular Service. That is the Service which helps the ordinary traveller abroad. I am particularly concerned about these people, as they are sometimes let down very badly by tour operators and bogus travel agents. They can also suffer much inconvenience at the hands of foreigners who are not anxious to be friendly or helpful, and the only persons to whom they can go are the Consular representatives. In any other period of our life this would not have mattered very much, but as to-day hundreds of thousands of people, possibly a million, go abroad every year, this is a matter of considerable importance.
The proposal that we should include the Consular Service among those in the Schedule 2 was turned down by the Government spokesman in another place on the ground that there are 400 Consuls and that it would be impossible for the Parliamentary Commissioner to contact them without having to fly around visiting them. I do not anticipate that this will be necessary. There are, after all, airmail posts and airmail services all over the world, and there are not likely to be complaints about 400 Consular posts. It is

1421
more likely to be on a few occasions that the ordinary traveller will be glad to be able to count on his or her difficulties on their travels being included in the subjects which M.P.s can take up with the Ombudsman. I hope that the Minister will consider this when he replies.
There is another matter, and that is in connection with the Minister who is able to plead privacy on the grounds of security or that something is against the national interest, which is dealt with in Clause 11, subsection (3). This is something which, in the case of the Swedish Ombudsman—again, I have made some inquiries about this—does not happen. The Swedish Ombudsman has access to all documents, even secret ones. Clause 7 of the Bill requires the Ombudsman to make his investigations in private. Why, then, are Ministers empowered under Clause 11 of this Bill to prohibit disclosure of documents if, in the opinion of the Minister, disclosure would be contrary to the public interest? Although Clause 8 lifts the legal restrictions on disclosure to some extent, Ministers still retain the power I have mentioned. This, I know, is a difficult point. We all know that it has been a standing temptation to Departments to give the words "contrary to the public interest" a rather elastic meaning when their affairs are called in question; and it can mean that the Executive is judge and jury in its own cause. If ever there was a case for an independent second opinion by the Ombudsman—a private opinion—it seems to me that it might well be here.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will allow me to answer, as I am nearer the Despatch Box. The noble Lady is being extremely helpful, because she is raising every single false impression which has been expressed on the Bill. The Ombudsman will have complete access to the papers, and the Minister will not be able to prevent him seeing them.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: Even though, from these words in the Bill, it looks very much as though he could? Perhaps this could be made clearer by some re-wording when we are dealing with Amendments.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Lady wishes for greater clarity,
1422
she perhaps should turn her attention to matters other than Parliamentary Bills, which are drafted for a particular purpose. I should explain clearly to her that this concerns only the publication of these papers outside the Department; but the Parliamentary Commissioner has full access to them. It is in relation particularly to a matter of security. If it is a security question, it may then be undesirable to give it general publication.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I am delighted to have elicited so much information by my remarks, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply.
I should like to raise a point about the exclusion of local government—I think this was a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised—and also a point on complaints about the police. Complaints about the police are excluded from investigation; so the standing criticism of the present manner of investigation of complaints by the police authorities is left untouched. It is worth noting that the Swedish Ombudsman is able to exonerate, as well as to investigate the powers of the police and of the public, which I think is certainly welcome.
I think that many of the gravest decisions affecting individuals emanate from local government—and I speak with some authority, having been for thirty years a member of a local authority. Here, again, the Ombudsman is excluded. There will, I am sure, be difficulties in bringing this sphere under the Parliamentary Commissioner but, as other noble Lords have said, I do not think these difficulties are insuperable. I should like to see them investigated.
There is one other point which nobody else, I think, has raised. Again the noble Lord may say he has already answered it. Clause 5(1)(a) says that all complaints must be written complaints to a Member of Parliament or, presumably, from him to the Commissioner. I do not need to stress the fact for those Members who have for years been holding weekly meetings of their constituents—and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, did so in Coventry, when she represented the people there—that a great many people who come to complain would be quite incapable of stating their trouble simply and clearly in writing. In fact, everyone knows that it is often very difficult

1423
to make an application in writing and that the best way is to see the person concerned and to make the complaint for them or to listen to their troubles. I know, through working closely with the Citizens Advice Bureau, that the greater proportion of all the complaints they get come to them from people who would be quite incapable of making written applications on these points; they are capable only of coming to discuss it with a sympathetic listener who will help them in conversation and help them to try to solve their difficulties.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I may tell the noble Lady that her fears on that score are also groundless.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, in those circumstances, if my fears for the consumer are all met already, I feel much more enthusiastic about the Bill than I did when I started to make this speech. I am anxious that the consumer should have full access and also full redress on any point he may wish to take up. If the Bill has the safeguards I have put forward, then I am very grateful. There are other points which have been raised by other Members which I shall be interested to speak to on Committee stage, and I trust we shall then be able to make some alterations. I hope it will be a valuable Bill; I think it could be strengthened, and I should like to add my support to those who would like to bring the House of Lords and the House of Commons together in the Bill. In conclusion, I express the hope that the Bill will be a success.
5.45 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about the name of this officer. I think that "Ombudsman", a Scandinavian word, even when spoken with a charming Scottish voice is rather misleading. Really, the Ombudsman has an entirely different function in a much smaller country. With a Constitution so different from ours, he is bound to have different duties and responsibilities. When the trams were introduced into the streets of Athens for the first time, the Greek newspapers, who believe in keeping to classical Greek, called them "horse iron courser". But the inhabitants, un-
1424
daunted by this awful word, called it "Tó tram"; and "Tó tram" it has been ever since. The Welsh are a great deal better than we are at this kind of thing. I agree that the phrase "Parliamentary Commissioner" is rather cumbersome. Why not "Edmund the Search"? I think it would be just the right Welsh way to describe what the man has to do.
"Edmund the Search", we hope, is going to be appointed; and I think it is important to see what kind of job he has to do. He is, of course, paid by the House of Commons; he is answerable to the House of Commons; he reports to the House of Commons; he is described, and I think rightly, as an Officer of the House of Commons. There is one other similar Officer at present, the Comptroller-General. The Comptroller-General has always been someone who is removable only on an Address from both Houses. But it would be rather absurd, when you promote this distinguished person to this new job, if you were to make him merely dismissible by a Resolution of the Commons. It has been said to be for that reason only that a Resolution of both Houses was required. But he is an Officer of the Commons. When I look at what his powers and functions are, they seem to be fundamentally those which an ordinary Member of Parliament would exercise sitting in the House.
Let us first look at this question of policy direction and administration. Policy, it seems to me, is clearly laid down by Parliament, by the Government, in the complicated way that our Constitution has evolved over the years—a way which seems far from having finished evolving yet. Then we come to the question of what is "discretion". I do not find the difficulty that people find about this word. I suppose I am a particularly innocent breed of lawyer. I am certainly not a practised one. "Discretion" seems to me quite clear. You leave things in Statutes expressly to a Minister's discretion. Sometimes you do so by the form of words that are used: "He may do so and so; he shall do something else". That is no infallible guide; but if you look at an Act you see quite clearly what discretion is intended to be in a particular case and you see what element of it is imperative. Again, you

1425
sometimes use general words which give him a general form of discretion. But this is all a matter for the Minister, something in the exercise of which he is answerable to Parliament; therefore it is a matter for him to be "hauled over the coals" about and not, as I understand it, for "Edmund the Search" to investigate. I do not see the difficulty.
Then it is said: "Well, the line is not a sharp one." It has been said to-day that you never get sharp lines. But you do. You get sharp lines when you divide things by a date, for instance, as you do in a good deal of social service legislation. And what is the result? Often, you get a lot of hardship and unfairness among the people who are just on one side of the line. I recognise that this is not a clear-cut line. It seems to me, none the less, to be a perfectly real one, and it is quite possible to have a real line which is not clear-cut. We constantly have it in all sorts of ways. I have been trying to think of a better word, as everybody has, but I cannot think of one. I find no difficulty at all in understanding what is meant by "maladministration". You can search your mind to try to find border-line cases of course—it is rather fun to do so—but it does not meet the real point, which is that it is the clearest way of conveying the intention of the field in which "Edmund the Search" has to operate without limiting it by one definition or unduly enlarging it by another. Definitions in Acts of Parliament so very often do a good deal more than define. They even limit or enlarge, and therefore I find no difficulty about that.
This seems to me to be a field in which the Member of Parliament operates when in his own constituency. He comes to the House and plays his part in the formation of policy, and harries' the Minister on questions of discretion. But when he goes to his constituency, what he is very largely concerned with is administration, or sometimes, but rather rarely, maladministration.
I do not think there will be an enormous number of cases under this Bill; that is my impression. There is one rather horrifying figure which I should like to mention to your Lordships. In a year and a half New Zealand, with a population (here I am speaking off the cuff, and I hope I have the figure right)
1426
of a million and a half, had a thousand cases to deal with. If you multiply that number to estimate the number of cases we shall have (I am sure that your Lordships' arithmetic, indeed anybody's arithmetic, is better than mine) you come to a number of about 30,000 or 40,000. £150,000 by way of a preliminary estimate of the expense rather indicates that kind of figure. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps there will be more. What I think is really going to happen, and what I am afraid of, is that there will be a great many people who will send complaints to the "Search", if I may so call him, which are not within his province.
What I am nervous about over the Bill is this. It was described by the Financial Secretary during the Third Reading debate in another place as quite a considerable experiment in our system of government. That is the very most that it is. It cannot, as I see it, cover matters of local government without being utterly illogical and also, I should have thought, utterly impracticable—but completely illogical. After all, what is to be investigated is maladministration; it is to be investigated, as the list shows, in organs of government and not of course in nationalised industries—that is another matter—and it is not to be investigated in local government. Compared with some noble Lords who have been speaking to-day I am no expert, but I should not have thought that local authorities would like it a bit if a man sitting in London is going to investigate maladministration in a local council. There are other ways of dealing with that already. One used to be to send a certain noble Lady now in this House to tell them where they got off, and it worked very well. She was very good at it.
Besides that, there are in a great many of these cases appeals to the Minister; and there are sometimes appeals to tribunals, bodies such as a lands tribunal or one of the other tribunals which are set up. There are different methods of dealing with something else, and they are not in the field of "Edmund the Search", and they cannot be without producing a totally different kind of animal from what this Bill is intended to produce. I think that is quite right.

1427
I do not think we want to try to produce a sweeping Bill.
My Lords, it may be that this kind of provision is not the right way at all. I do not think the alternative to-day is something on the Scandinavian lines. For the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which I think I mentioned myself, we shall not get any further in that direction; it does not fit our system of Parliamentary government. If you were going to have an alternative you would be far more likely to find it in the kind of system which the French have. France is a country comparable, roughly, in size and resources and industrialisation to our own, and their alternative to the Ombudsman is to have a conseil d'état and a system of administrative law which runs down from the conseil d'état to local tribunals, which has served the purposes of France rather well. But I think that the differences in their Parliamentary system, when you come to look at them, are probably too fundamental to make that kind of system of much use to us. But it is there as an alternative, and I suppose that it is such a nice change, if I may say so without being rude to anybody, or intending to be, to have a noble and learned Lord sitting on the Woolsack who really wants to tidy up the law. I am not intending to say that other people have not made efforts, but at any rate he is trying; and this is the kind of thing which I should have thought would have to be considered from that point of view.
Before I sit down, may I just thank the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne. He has thrown, at any rate for me, a wonderful light on the workings of a place to which I have never been before —the mind of a Chief Whip. He was inordinately prodigal with Parliamentary time for Private Members. I think it must have been his instincts, suppressed over many years; a thirst for liberty which, perhaps, has been a little quelled by his previous position. He will not, I hope, take this unkindly. It is not in the least meant to be unkind. As he will have gathered, I do not agree with his speech, but I hope he will like my saying that I found it very interesting.
5.58 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I cannot answer for remarks attributed to my
1428
noble friend Lord Byers on some earlier occasion, and he is not here to deny them. I will just say that he has been misinterpreted. In any case, I myself certainly belong to that wing of the Liberal Party, which is perhaps the main body of the Liberal Party, which would welcome at any rate the principle of this Bill. I think it is an important and desirable novelty in our Constitution that the principle of a Minister's responsibility before Parliament for his Department should no longer be accepted as adequate protection for the citizen against the actions of the Executive. I think also that this Parliamentary Commissioner will provide a remedy for certain cases of injustice, although unquestionably only for a very small minority of such cases, which do result from maladministration. For this reason, and by reason of his very existence, this should do something to relieve that steam of resentment that the public accumulates in its sense of being overborne by bureaucracy.
I happen to believe that the issue of bureaucracy is one crucial to Western democracies at this time. In these countries a rapid increase of population and a rapid equalisation of the standards of living has necessitated a proliferation of controls; of compulsory purchase orders; of regulations; of licences, all of which are bureaucratically managed. In such circumstances it is, I think, very easy for the citizens to accumulate a sense of frustration, a sense of restriction, a sense of remoteness from Government.
There was recently an example in Holland, a country in which I live part of my life, of the sort of explosion which I think can result from this sort of background; of a sense of restriction from bureaucratic control, which I am quite sure in that case was largely responsible. It therefore seems to me that in societies like these, where it is particularly necessary—where in fact it is a physical necessity—to have so many controls, it becomes, for that reason, all the more important to avoid adding causes for a sense of injustice. It is for this reason that the appearance of this Bill is timely, in that at least it addresses itself to the relief of this problem.
Having said that, I should like to express a fear that this Bill will gradually

1429
be found to be a considerable disappointment. It will certainly be a disappointment to the First Secretary. Since this debate has not been free from references to the inconsistencies of earlier remarks of members of different Parties, I do not think that I can be called to account for repeating what the First Secretary wrote in 1964 in the New Statesman. He said:
"There are cases involving the police or perhaps the prisons or mental hospitals where evidence conflicts and the Executive wishes to protect its servants. A tribunal under the 1921 Act may be too fond of this, yet the collective authority of Parliament rather than of a single M.P. may be needed to discover the truth."
This Bill certainly does not go so far as that. The list of exclusions is formidable—Government contracts, nationalised industries, Civil Service, Armed Forces, all matters of personnel, the anomaly of most but not all public hospitals and, above all, the two questions that have rightly drawn most attention, the colossal areas under local government—planning, education, rates, police, housing—and, secondly, the areas of departmental and Ministerial policies and discretion.
It is on those two questions that I am afraid once again I should like to concentrate. I do not understand the Government's attitude with regard to local authorities. There is no disagreement that it is in this area in which most complaints are made and felt by ordinary people. That is not surprising, because they have far more contact with their local authorities than with Central Government authorities. It seems to be the Government's hope—and I think that this has been acknowledged in this debate—that local authorities will follow the precedent set out in this Bill and establish some form of remedial procedure of their own.
In the first place, this might take a long time and it would certainly be a very unequal process. There is enough complacency to make sure of that. Secondly, if local authorities did tend to follow this example, I wonder what the result would he like? There would be complaint officers, such as those which certain councils have already established. I cannot think that this is very satisfactory. For a local authority to detail a member of itself, responsible to itself, to receive complaints against itself, and for that authority then to take what notice
1430
it pleases, seems to me a poor sort of Ombudsman indeed. This puts me more in mind of the complaints box at school where disciplinary action for having had the audacity to complain is just as likely a result as the remedying of the injustice complained of.
Imagine for a moment that all local authorities did leap to this example in the Bill. There are some 1,500 local authorities. Imagine some 1,500 local Ombudsmen, not to mention any established by the 7,500 parish councils, who might choose to follow the Government's example—each of widely varying capacity, of varying ideas of justice and of varying terms of reference, dealing with a moving population, carrying grievances from one district to another, perhaps to one officer after another. There would be countless complaints about the varying standards of justice which operated between these Ombudsmen. Perhaps we would then have to create tiers of Ombudsmen above them to review their decisions. I submit that this is an unacceptable picture.
What is confusing is that the Government also have spoken in different terms. On the Second Reading in another place the Financial Secretary said:
"The decision not to extend the Bill to cover the actions of local authorities stems immediately from the decision that he is a Parliamentary Commissioner."
This was a point repeated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech this afternoon. I presume that it means that the Commissioner's responsibility is to Parliament.
In this case only two courses can be open. Either the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner must be extended to cover local authorities at some stage, or there must be regional Parliamentary commissioners, and I think that this is probably what this Party would like to see. I do not think it is necessary at this stage to extend the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner to cover local authorities. I think that we should wait for the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government. The Commission, after all, may recommend regional assemblies. Perhaps it is a good thing if the Parliamentary Commissioner is started off with just a nibble at the problem. We have to wait and see his digestive capacity. But there does not

1431
seem to be any need to exclude the possibility of later amending this Bill so that the Parliamentary Commissioner may be empowered to cover local authority matters, which this Bill now does both in its Title and in Clause 4(2). In that respect, we would seek to amend the Bill in Committee. Secondly, I think we must still recognise that in the meantime the Parliamentary Commissioner's job in terms of the problem of maladministration as a whole would be limited.
I turn to the second area of exclusion, that of policy and discretion, and on both points I am afraid that I shall have to ask for clarification. How inclusive is "policy"? If a complaint is investigated, and on any ordinary reading the result of the Department's decision has produced an unfairness, but let us say the Department could show that the decision was typical of a number of other such decisions it had already taken, could it then claim immunity on the ground that this was a Ministerial policy decision? I should like to know the answer to that.
In this respect, perhaps I could refer to the example which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave of a less disabled man given priority in his application for a wheelchair over a person more disabled, because it was the policy of the Department, because they would like him to go out to work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, there is no question of excluding a view. What the Commissioner will be doing is to find out what is happening. The key words of this subsection are, "to review by way of appeal". He is not entitled to walk into a Government Department and say that he is going to overrule their decision. I was interested in what the noble Lord was saying, and before he sits down perhaps he could explain how this could be extended to local authorities. The Commissioner has powers to cross-examine and to see all documents, but he cannot make an executive order. He cannot overrule any Minister's decision in any case at all. All he can do is to ask the Minister to do what he thinks is right and report to the Select Committee which can then call the Minister to account. It is the Select Committee which has power over Ministers. But a Parliamentary
1432
Select Committee has no power over the Mayor of Bootle.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I accept the noble and learned Lord's point that the Parliamentary Commissioner does not have any power apart from his power of investigation. But he can certainly be given powers to investigate complaints arising out of local authority matters. What we may then get is such a body of evidence produced by the Parliamentary Commissioner, as a result of his investigations into local authority maladministration, that we should establish the need for an alteration of procedure to enable the local authorities to establish machinery to control in some measure maladministration in local authority matters. I accept the noble and learned Lord's objection in this respect, and I see that this difficulty might arise, but it is something which could possibly lead to beneficial legislation in the long run.
Perhaps I can move to the question of discretion. What I understood the noble and learned Lord to say originally (and this is from Clause 5(4)) was that you can get a Minister's discretion which has been based on an administrative procedure that has been correctly followed, and in that case the Parliamentary Commissioner would not be entitled to review the discretionary decision of the Minister. It is simply the case of an appeal against the Minister's decision. Is that not right? The original distinction was between a discretionary decision by a Minister based on an administrative procedure that has been incorrectly followed, and a discretionary decision by a Minister based on a procedure that has been correctly followed, and in both cases the Ombudsman would be entitled to conduct an investigation. There is no doubt about this, I take it? It is a question that must be answered. That is to say, in all cases the Ombudsman must be free to conduct an investigation, because he cannot know in advance where the responsibility lies, with the discretion of the Minister or the maladministration upon which it is based. This is where I may be incorrect. Is the distinction between his power to review based on the distinction I have drawn between these two different types of maladministration?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is right. The way in which the Whyatt Report puts it is this:
"Our Inquiry is not concerned with complaints against administrative acts merely because they give effect to laws which are considered objectionable or in some way undesirable. Such complaints are not in fact complaints against bad administration but against bad laws. Similarly, complaints against administrative acts merely because they implement what is considered to be wrong policy are not our concern since policy is the responsibility of the Minister and not of the administrator. Nor are complaints against discretionary decisions which are lawful in themselves but unwelcome to the complainant within the scope of the complaints with which we are concerned. The remedy for such complaints (if deserving of remedy) is, and to an increasing extent should be—as we have suggested in Part II of our Report —by way of an appeal to a tribunal.
"The complaints with which we deal are complaints of official misconduct in a sense that the administrative authority responsible for the act or decision complained of has failed to observe proper standards of conduct …".
LORD REAY: In other words, my Lords, he is not restricted by his discretionary authority in any investigation. It is simply what he considers himself entitled to say at the end of it. Well, that is something. I am not sure that that is the only question one ought to ask about the meaning of this clause, but I think that I have said enough about it.
However, I share the view that the discretionary powers should probably not fall outside the field of his review, although I accept the difficulty of the question of simply leaving an individual to appeal against it. What one does not know is how large this area covered by discretion would be, and perhaps what one might have from the Deputy Leader of the House later is some description of how wide an area is covered by discretionary judgments of Departments and Ministries, and whether they can be described as any area in which there were not positive legal instructions discoverable as to how the civil servant or the Minister should act.
It seems to me that tribunals are not applicable as a general weapon of redress in this respect. They are rare. There are no real rules determining when they should be established; and usually it is in response to intense political pressure. I know that the Whyatt Report
1434
recommended that this should be dealt with by tribunals, and that the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 has recently been extended. I am not convinced that this is a substantial adjustment to the Act, and it still seems to me that these objections would apply. Some sort of test would be whether the Government consider there are likely to be more cases of tribunals being established to adjudicate on matters of potential Ministerial bad discretion. Perhaps we could have the noble Lord's view on that.
So far as the recommendation of the Whyatt Report is concerned, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was rather curious on this. He went out of his way to emphasise the calibre of Justice, and the weight that ought to be attached to its authority, and then went out of his way to demonstrate how the Government had, to use his words, "thrown out of the window" three of its most important and most cautious recommendations. He did not list a fourth that his colleague in another place listed in the same spirit—namely, a five-year trial period limiting the channel of communication to Members of Parliament. I suggest that a fifth might be added, and that the Whyatt Report should be exceeded in this respect of discretion, also; and I think I should support an Amendment on this in Committee.
There are two other points that I might mention. On the matter of a special report laid by the Parliamentary Commissioner before Parliament on individual cases, I think I should prefer something different from the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Wade, his suggestion being that the Parliamentary Commissioner should have power to refer it to the High Court by way of case stated. I should like to put forward the suggestion that such reports may be laid before the Judicial Committee established under the Judicial Committee Act 1833, which considered the Strauss Privilege case in 1958;or, alternatively, that a mixed Commission might be established, mixed in the sense of containing both lawyers and non-lawyers and Members of both Houses. It was, I think, such a Commission which was used in the Irish Peers case.
The advantages of this would seem to me to be that it would be small and

1435
judicial, which the Floor of the House of Commons would not be, but it would not exclude Parliamentary responsibility, which any reference to the High Court necessarily would. It would also be able to hear evidence—for example, the evidence of a named civil servant who could presumably be represented before it. This would not be possible either in the case of the report being referred to Parliament or of the report being referred to the High Court by way of case stated. Thirdly, I think it would enable the build-up of precedents for dealing with and interpreting such cases, rather as the French have done in the past where you have had a droit administratif.
I would support the idea that Peers also should be a channel of communication. I probably should not have bothered to mention this, if this had been done adequately, if it were not for the fact that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. Apart from the reasons already given, it seems that Peers can already do a great deal in this respect. They can put down Starred Questions and Unstarred Questions, and can have correspondence with Ministers and their Departments.
I have only one final point. I have heard that it is the intention to have subsidiary officers of the Parliamentary Commissioner in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. It is possible that this is incorrect, in which case the Government might like to take this opportunity of denying it. If it is correct, I can understand why it should be Edinburgh, because, after all, they have a different system of law. But I should find it less easy to understand Cardiff and Belfast; not if they were separate Ombudsmen, attached to separate Parliaments in those regions, but in the present circumstances it seems that this may be a regrettable and invidious diffusion of responsibility, if indeed the investigation and report of cases of complaint would be completed autonomously in those different centres.
I would end by saying that I hope the distinguished man the Government has chosen is able to make a reasonable job of it, although I think it is certainly odd to appoint a holder to this office before the function of the office was clear. In any case, I believe everyone
1436
would wish him luck. It is a very important job, the more so as I think it is insufficiently appreciated how ignorant we all must be of the manner in which the job can be discharged.
6.21 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, the hour is getting late and I will be as brief as I can. It seems to me that the general idea underlying the Bill is deserving of support. We need a long stop for all the cases where there is no adequate machinery for reviewing administrative decisions. But, that said, it seems to me also that this Bill probably falls a good deal short of what one would like to see. The Law Guardian, some time ago, in a leading article, described the new institution as an "Ombudsmouse" rather than an "Ombudsman". That is perhaps a little unkind, but one can see the point of the criticism.
When my right honourable friend in another place, the Lord President of the Council, introduced the Bill, he was anxious to repudiate the notion that this institution had been borrowed from other countries. He wanted to show, apparently, that it was a native product. That seems to me a little churlish perhaps, because, surely, this idea of a Parliamentary Commissioner was derived from the Scandinavian institution. Indeed, one may well think that in so far as it differs from that institution it is inferior to it.
There seems to be a certain official hostility towards the description "Ombudsman". For my part, I share the view of those who think that it is a good term. I should personally have liked to see it used. It has a homely ring, which I think would endear it much more to the ordinary citizen than this terrible mouthful of "Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration". That is also a designation which, I am afraid, is likely to be confused in the popular mind with the Law Commissioners, who are performing, of course, a very different function. Surely the English language is not incapable of assimilating a foreign term. After all, New Zealanders, who have adopted this institution, have not been afraid to use the designation, "Ombudsman" as a term in their Act.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am afraid I am very ignorant. What does "Ombudsman" mean?
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am not and do not pretend to be an expert in the Scandinavian languages. All I can say is that it has become known as a popular designation for an official who is concerned to review administrative decisions, and what I am suggesting is that the ordinary man in the street will understand the term, whereas he will be somewhat daunted by the notion of a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I do not want to take up too much time on that point.
I think that the Government fully intended to give this new institution what was called in another place "a real cutting edge". What I am rather doubtful about is whether they have succeeded in doing so. I say that for two reasons: first of all, because of this vexed and much discussed distinction between discretion and maladministration; and secondly, because of the many important fields of activity which have been excluded from the Bill. I should like to say a word or two about this distinction between discretion and maladministration, and would express my regret and apologies that I did not have the advantage this afternoon of hearing the opening speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor which might well have clarified certain points for the benefit of your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, I was not present to hear the speech because I was obliged to be away on a public engagement, and it may be that some of my own misunderstanding and confusion about the matter would have been clarified if I had had the advantage of hearing his observations.
I would say, to begin with, that I think there is nothing whatsoever in the criticism that this new amendment of Clause 5(4) has in some way emasculated the original Bill. This, it seems to me, is nonsense, because it was made perfectly clear—and I have taken the trouble to re-read the debate which occurred in another place and in particular the opening speech of the Lord President of the Council, which makes it perfectly clear—that the original Bill was not intended to cover discretion. This also followed the Whyatt Report, which made this distinction between maladministration and discretion. In fact, the Lord President of the Council pointed out that discretion was excluded from the Bill, and he further
1438
pointed out that a discretion covered a decision properly exercised which the complainant disliked but where he could not fault the manner in which it was taken.
Then he went on to catalogue the sort of matters which constitute, in his view, maladministration by a civil servant, which he described, perhaps not inappropriately, as a "wonderful exercise". He went on to itemise these things as follows, and I quote:
"Bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness, and so on. It would be a long and interesting list."
It sounds a formidable list. But the point I am making at the moment is that Clause 5(4) only served to underline that discretion was excluded from the Bill. My complaint about this matter is that this distinction between discretion and maladministration, which undoubtedly stems from the Whyatt Report itself, is, in my respectful view, an unsound and undesirable distinction. I feel convinced that the public will be grievously disappointed as it gradually penetrates to them that a great many of the sort of things they think they are going to be able to carry to this particular official will be excluded in limine. My Lords, can the ordinary man, "the man on the Clapham omnibus", as he has been described by some of our judges, really understand the difference between maladministration and discretion? I very much doubt it.
As I understand it, and I am far from being sure that I do, a fault in administration means this: an injustice has resulted from a wrong procedure, and then the Parliamentary Commissioner can investigate. If a right procedure leads to a demonstrably wrong, unfair or absurd result, then he is powerless. It seems to me, my Lords, that this is an unrealistic and artificial distinction to make, with all respect to the learned gentlemen who composed the Whyatt Committee. I have taken the trouble to look again (because I read it when it came out) at the actual Report of the Whyatt Committee, and it is interesting to see that they give three examples of what they called maladministration. The first one they call abuse of power, such as a public official behaving oppressively towards a person lawfully in his custody. That is a case which is hardly likely to arise, except in the case

1439
of the police, and the police have been excluded anyhow from this Bill. The second example is the misuse of power —for instance, an unfair preference when allocating a Government contract. This, your Lordships will appreciate, is also excluded from the Bill by Schedule 3 paragraph 9, because commercial contracts, and this would normally be a commercial contract, are excluded.
Thirdly, there is what one might call the "omnibus clause", which reads as follows:
"… or causes damage to a citizen through inefficiency, negligence or error in handling his rights or interests or, more rarely, official misconduct which may consist in a decision so harsh and unreasonable as to offend a sense of justice."
It is this last case which, in my view, is the most practical and which really shows how thin is the line between maladministration and discretion.
In the ordinary way a citizen is not going to be much troubled with cases of "bias, perversity or turpitude" or matters of the kind which Mr. Crossman's eloquence was able to summon up in a vision of the matters with which the Ombudsman may have to deal. The ordinary citizen, surely, will be concerned with this sort of case. A man has, for instance, been refused some sort of licence or permission to do something and to him, at any rate, the decision will seem a silly or an unreasonable one. Or perhaps—and this I think may often occur —the Administration may have laid down some rule for their own guidance which seems, rightly or wrongly, to be unreasonable, arbitrary or unduly harsh. What the ordinary citizen wants is to have the matter looked at by some independent authority in order to satisfy himself that the decision was just or, alternatively, if it was unjust that it should be publicly declared and the authority persuaded to change its mind. But as I understand this kind of case—and I hope that I am not missing anything, or that I have not incorrectly interpreted the Bill as it stands —it seems to me to be a case for the exercise of discretion which will lie outside the function of the Commissioner.
I believe that in this matter two vital points have been overlooked, and I would stress these. The Whyatt Report follows the pattern (a little unfortunately, I think), of the Swedish Ombudsman instead of
1440
following the pattern of the Danish Ombudsman, which would have been much better from our point of view. The Swedish Ombudsman applies some difference of this kind, although it is far from clear exactly what the distinction means in Swedish practice. But the Swedish system—and this is a point that the Whyatt Report makes—contains a general tribunal, and this general tribunal is a tribunal to which all administrative exercises of discretion can go when the citizen has a grievance about them. So it seems to me that a vital gap in this Bill is filled by another institution. The second point is that had we followed the pattern of the Danish Ombudsman, who has the power to deal with both kinds of matter, we should then have, as I suggested at the beginning, a lung stop who is able to deal with all these administrative situations where a citizen feels that he has been unreasonably, arbitrarily or harshly treated.
I think it is interesting to point out that in the New Zealand legislation—which is surely legislation to which we ought to pay the closest attention, because this is a country with a Common Law system which is applying the Scandinavian institution in the context of Common Law ideas—very significantly not only do the New Zealanders quite boldly describe their Commissioner as an Ombudsman (which for my part I applaud) but, secondly, the power of their Ombudsman is very wide. Indeed, these are the words, if I may quote them, from the New Zealand Act:
"He is entitled to review any decision which was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, improperly discriminatory or wrong".
I suggest that this is a much more realistic and satisfactory approach, and one which would give the public a much greater sense of having a genuine protector against faulty administration.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt my noble friend, it is worth pointing out that the New Zealand Ombudsman does not have the right to review the decisions of Ministers.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I do not dispute for a moment that he has not got this right. If I may say so, at the moment I am not talking about Ministers, I am talking about the administrative decisions of officials. Perhaps a

1441
Minister is also a kind of official, but I am thinking in terms of more subordinate officials who are exercising discretions in ways which will be regarded as "harsh, arbitrary or unreasonable" by the citizen. I think I have read that our Parliamentary Commissioner-designate has been visiting New Zealand in order to gain experience of the working of the system in that country, and I am bound to say that I feel it will be a somewhat frustrating experience for him in view of the fact, as I see it, that the New Zealand Ombudsman has a much broader based function than the Parliamentary Commissioner in this country will have. For instance, Sir Guy Powles, the present New Zealand Ombudsman, has pointed out that many of the cases with which he has dealt, and to which he has attached the greatest importance, have been cases which involve hardship.
I may be quite wrong in my construction of the Bill (and no doubt if I am it will be pointed out to me) but as it seems to me at the moment cases of hardship are not within the function of the Commissioner. In his reports Sir Guy Powles has given a number of striking cases where he was able to point out to the Administration that they had not given sufficient weight to certain elements of hardship, and as a result fresh decisions were arrived at. This seems to me to be a very important aspect of an Ombudsman's potential function.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question? This word "Ombudsman" in Swedish, where it seems to come from, means no more than "Commissioner". It is the Swedish for the word "Commissioner" in the phrase "Parliamentary Commissioner".
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am most indebted to my noble—and learned—friend for that information which, I am sure, as information emanating from him always is, is entirely accurate. But that does not seem to be a reason for avoiding the use of the term in our own practice, because it seems to me that ordinary people would find this a more homely and acceptable term than that of "Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration". But I have already expressed my view on that,
1442
and I do not wish to dilate on it at any length.
I am not arguing for a moment that there should be recourse to the Parliamentary Commissioner (if I may so describe him to gratify my noble friend) in every case. I am not arguing that every exercise of discretion should go to the Commissioner. Of course, when there are tribunals which exist to deal with these matters then there is no need for duplication. But what I am concerned about is that in all that range of matters where there is no particular tribunal to which a citizen can go, this is an appropriate matter which ought to be within the jurisdiction of an Ombudsman.
I think there is a certain danger in this idea that a Commissioner in this country is going to be so flooded with complaints that we must cut his jurisdiction down ruthlessly from the beginning to make sure that he will not be overwhelmed. This is always an argument that is raised whenever a new notion or new institution is suggested in this country. It is always said, "The courts will be flooded with litigation if we allow this," and so forth. To my mind this is something of a bogey. In fact, it has even been said, and I think with some justice, that people in this country do not complain enough. It may be that our trains would be cleaner and our food in many restaurants more eatable if people complained more. The Council on Tribunals have remarked in some of their Reports on the small number of complaints that are directed to them. This seems to me to be a national characteristic.
Of course, we do need to protect individuals and officials from being unduly harassed by unwarranted complaints. But I should have thought that civil servants would find, as they have found in other countries, that this new institution will help them, because where the Ombudsman or the Commissioner is able to show that no just ground of complaint exists, then the sense of grievance will be removed and people will feel much happier about the whole matter because it has been investigated by an independent person. I think this will relieve civil servants of a considerable burden.
I do not agree with the argument that we must not let the Commissioner deal

1443
with discretion because we want government by Government and not by Commissioner. This again, I suggest, is a false point because administrative decisions are sometimes foolish, unwise or ill-considered, and that is why we have tribunals to deal with these matters. If there is not a tribunal to deal with every matter, which would be very difficult, it is extremely desirable, it seems to me, to have an Ombudsman who can listen to these complaints. Moreover, he will be protected from being unduly flooded with complaints by the provision in the Bill that complaints must be vetted in the first instance by Members of Parliament.
I agree with what has been said by a number of speakers that criticism can be levelled against the Bill also on the ground that it has excluded a number of very important sources of public grievances, such as the police, hospitals, nationalised industries and so on. On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a reasonable argument in favour of some restriction of this kind in the first instance, because in the initial stages one does not want the Commissioner to be given more than he can cope with. Whether each one of these particular exceptions is justifiable is perhaps another matter, but I do not wish to take up further time on that.
My general view on this Bill, then, is that it is to be commended and deserves acceptance as an attempt to increase the liberty of the subject in this country, but I am not really satisfied that it is a tremendously courageous piece of legislation. I think it might have been bolder and it could have been made more effective, and I rather share the view as it was expressed by a Member in another place when he referred to his reaction to it as that of modified rapture. If I may just make this final observation, we now understand that administrative law is not a means of curtailing liberty but a means of increasing the protection of the citizen. The concept of an Ombudsman seems to be a very fruitful one as providing a valuable supplement to the rather limited resources of our own piecemeal administrative law. For my part, I could have wished for a rather bolder attempt to make this present institution
1444
a reality. I feel that the public may be rather disappointed when it becomes apparent to them how limited is the sphere of activity of the Commissioner, and that great difficulty may be experienced in inspiring public confidence in this institution even with so admirably qualified a first incumbent of the office as Sir Edmund Compton.
6.46 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, out of his great depth of knowledge, has informed us that "Ombudsman" is the Swedish not for Parliamentary Commissioner but simply for Commissioner. Perhaps we shall hear from the noble Lord when he has his next opportunity to address us what the Swedish is for "Parliamentary", and then we shall have the Swedish for the whole expression. I hesitate to say anything further about subsection (4) of Clause 5, which has already been touched upon by many noble Lords, including the very distinguished lawyer, the noble Lord who has just spoken, but undoubtedly that subsection caused noble Lords more trouble than any other. That is the one which deals with the Ombudsman's power in relation to the exercise by a Minister of his discretion. It has, I think, undoubtedly caused great difficulty for the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and undoubtedly also for my noble friend Lord Reay.
I do not know if this is of any help to the Minister at all, but I have written down what I believe may be the correct interpretation of this subsection, and if my interpretation is correct I am bound to say that I think the subsection is a fair one. My interpretation, for what it is worth, is this. Subsection (4) of Clause 5 means that an Ombudsman has no power to criticise a Minister's discretion reached in good faith, but he does have the power to inquire whether or not the Minister has acted unwisely or worse in the course of arriving at the point at which he exercises his discretion. I do not know if that helps at all, but that is what it appears to me to mean, and if that is what it does mean I could not quarrel with that subsection.
There is no need for me to add to the chorus of voices in favour of an Ombudsman to investigate matters of dispute between citizens and local authorities. Indeed, I thought nobody put it

1445
more forcibly in this debate than the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor himself, very early on, when he said it would be a very good thing if every local authority in the country had its own Ombudsman. I know that there are difficulties about this. You cannot do everything at once. But I do feel that, if the Ombudsman experiment is being tried, it is a thousand pities that it is not being tried in relation to the much simpler problems, albeit more numerous, in which citizens are in dispute with their local authorities, rather than with the very much more complex though less numerous problems that arise between the citizen and Whitehall.
I should like to give from my own experience one example of what I would regard as the perfect case for an Ombudsman to investigate—a dispute between a citizen and his local authority. This is taken from my own experience, and I know that, on the one hand, your Lordships welcome Members speaking from their own experience, but, upon the other hand, this is not to be used as an excuse for airing a private grievance in this House. I have thought about this carefully, and I hope that what I am about to say in a few words will be thought to be something which is not really so serious as to be capable of being a serious private grievance, but which, nevertheless, is a matter which well might be investigated by an Ombudsman.
Last May the clerk to the council of the rural district in which I live wrote to me a letter of complaint, in which he said:
"Two cottages belonging to you have no refrigerator or ventilated larder for the storage of food."
I wrote back to him saying:
"Which two cottages are you referring to?"
I received no reply, and I wrote back again asking:
"Which two cottages are you referring to?"
Again I received no reply. The summer had worn on, and I am glad to say that nobody had contracted food poisoning because they had no proper place to store their food. I wrote a third time to the clerk and asked:
"Which two cottages were you referring to?"
After waiting a week I received a printed postcard with the printed signature of the
1446
clerk to the rural district council, in which he said:
"I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the 12th inst., which is receiving attention".
I did not believe that it was, and I placed this matter before the noble Lord, Lord Champion, whom I am delighted to see in his place, who was then Minister without Portfolio answering in your Lordships' House for matters concerning health and hygiene. What the noble Lord did I do not quite know, but a reply came subsequently from the clerk to the rural district council. He specified the two cottages to which he had been referring and at the end of his letter he said:
"I await hearing from you when the refrigerators have been installed."
I was able to say in reply to that letter that the original complaint of the previous May was totally unfounded. The original tenants of both of these cottages had arrived with their own refrigerators on the day they moved in. I amglad to say that they are both still in occupation of the cottages and, so far as I know, have still got their refrigerators.
I do not know whether the local authority believe what I have told them or not, but what I am quite sure of is that an Ombudsman worth his salt ought to be able to resolve a dispute of this kind in three minutes, by ringing up the clerk to the local authority and saying "Now, look here, either a cottage has a refrigerator, or it has not. But you say in this case that it has not, and he says that it has. Why on earth don't you send somebody round to find out?" That is why I feel that it is a great pity that, if we are trying the Ombudsman experiment, local authorities placed in a situation of this kind are going to be sheltered from the attention of the Ombudsman.
6.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, as the chief ogre in this particular little story that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, namely, the chairman of the rural district council concerned, I feel that your Lordships will forgive me if I put in a word here because I think that, although they are a quite small council and a small pebble on the beach, they are a body which is second to none in public spiritedness, and also, whatever the facts of this particular case may be, they have

1447
an extremely efficient body of officers who serve them.
The path of true love does not really run straight. We have not been without our problems with the noble Lord. It may be that the letters were not answered as they should have been on that occasion. I would remind him, however, that he put in notice to build in April, 1965, to turn some of his house into some flats—a most praiseworthy idea. We got the notice that he intended to build in April. We also did not get the building form, the intention to build, which is necessary, completed for five months.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess what this has to do with Ombudsmen?
THE MARQUESS OF EXETER: My Lords, I was just about to come on to that. I was just explaining that these difficulties are not confined to one person. So there are such things as "the kettle calling the pot black", which, I admit, is no excuse so far as our own officers are concerned. But this, I think, is quite an exceptional case. Those of your Lordships who are engaged in local government will know of the problem that he raised. It is a matter that under the by-laws there has to be either a larder or something similar as a landlord's fixture, which remains with the house—not a tenant's fixture he may get up and go and take it with him. That is how this particular problem arose, and that is a problem that has to be decided by the local authority according to their by-laws. But I can assure your Lordships that, so far as everything else is concerned in the local authority, I am quite confident that we have a fine lot of officers; and I think, if you ask them, the huge majority of the constituents of the council will agree with that.
6.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, perhaps I might be excused if I do not venture into the internecine disputes of a certain rural district some way to the North of your Lordships' House, but address myself for one moment to the rather broader question of local authorities. This is one of the aspects of this Bill which I am sure will
1448
be fully discussed at the next stage; and I think there will be an interesting discussion on it then, as there has been on all matters that have been raised in the House this evening.
There are perhaps two points on this matter which are worth dealing with on Second Reading. The first is the one which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that in fact the Bill as drawn at the moment would not contain authority in it to bring in a jurisdiction over local authorities by means of an Order under Clause 4. So far as I can see, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was perfectly right in suggesting this. Whether or not at this moment it might be thought a good idea to have local authorities included in the Bill does not seem to me altogether the point. As I understand it, what we are doing is to institute some sort of experiment on a fairly narrow field; and I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was in fact talking in these terms when he introduced the Bill to this House. But that does not mean to say that one ought not to have power in the legislative measure which would enable Parliament, without coming back with a further Bill, to extend the field over which the Parliamentary Commissioner might be able to operate.
That being so, it occurred to me to wonder whether the power to make an Order in Council ought not to be extended to cover rather more than it does at the moment; and, indeed, whether it might be that we ought to consider this whole question of applying the power to extend by Order in Council to other parts of the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner which have also been talked about this afternoon. I would have thought that there were sufficiently world-shaking things done these days by Orders in Council—if one considers what happens abroad in Rhodesia, or at home with the second appointed day under the Land Commission—to make it a tolerable exercise of power to use this subordinate legislation to do the sort of thing I was suggesting. However, it might be that we could return to that point later on.
The other point on this was the one that the noble and learned Lord raised. He asked, what was the point of bringing in local authorities? I am not sure that the argument that the noble and learned Lord was putting forward is an altogether

1449
valid one. It is true that a Select Committee of another place has no direct jurisdiction over the Mayor of Bootle. But what it does have is power to badger a Minister, and in many of the cases of the sort of thing that might go wrong with the administration of their powers by local authorities, Ministers have reserve powers under the General Acts.
When this point arose I thought that I might find such a thing in the Public Health Act 1936, and indeed I found in Section 318 (which I trust has not been repealed) the following:
"The Minister may cause a local inquiry to be held in any case where he …deems it advisable that a local inquiry should be held in relation to any matter concerning the public health in any place."
Obviously, a large majority of the complaints which might come to the Commissioner in relation to local authorities would not invoke that type of inquiry. But there might be cases where the Minister ought to take action under reserve powers, and a Select Committee of another place might be precisely the instrument which would persuade him to do so. So I do not believe that it ought to be written-off altogether as a hopeless idea without further thought. Since nobody, I imagine, is proposing to move an Amendment to put local authorities within the jurisdiction at this moment, but at the most to put in an Amendment to enable them to be brought in at some future time, there would at least be a further opportunity to think whether it was wise to do this or not.
When the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, comes to reply, I wonder whether he could answer one or two questions about this matter of jurisdiction. I am afraid I have not given him notice of them, but I do not think they are very difficult. First of all, during his introductory speech on the Land Commission Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Land Commission was going to be covered by the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. For obvious reasons, until the Land Commission Bill became law it was impossible to put anything in the Schedule, but is it the intention of the Government to move an Amendment to this effect?
I think probably it is unnecessary to say anything more about the paragraph in Schedule 3, which has had such
1450
a chequered career but is now in the Bill again, which excludes from the purview of the Commissioner regional hospital boards and other matters under the National Health Service. That again, I suspect, will be a matter which will be much discussed at a later stage. Could the noble Lord tell me this? If one compares the list of departments and authorities subject to investigation in Schedule 2 with the White Paper, I am not particularly concerned that we have not in the Bill the Ordnance Survey covered by the Second Schedule, but—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is being abolished, so I suppose it is now something else—probably the Welsh Office.
LORD SHACKLETON: It comes under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes. I do not think that anybody has so changed the name or aspect of the Lord Privy Seal, the Minister Without Portfolio, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that they have in some curious form ceased to exist. What those Ministers may do under different Administrations is a matter which can be changed and varied a great deal, but in some cases Ministers who hold those technical titles have departmental duties of one sort or another, and if they were in the White Paper as being Ministers who should be subject to investigation could the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, say why they are not now in the Bill? There were the three I mentioned—the Lord Privy Seal, the Minister Without Portfolio and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I should have thought that action taken by them would be action taken on behalf of the Crown, which was the second principle enunciated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as governing the whole philosophy of this Bill.
Coming to Clause 5, I am not going to be so rash as to try to add to the wealth of definitions which have been put forward by various noble Lords this afternoon. I think I understand what it means, and I think there have been at least two accurate expressions of its meaning in

1451
the debate. Therefore, since I imagine Lord Shackleton will be producing one of his own, any effort of mine would be a matter of supererogation. But there are some practical difficulties about this, which I would ask the noble Lord to consider, even if he cannot answer them to-day. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, was quite right when he said that people will be disappointed about this. I have been trying to think how the matter would in fact operate.
The first point on which I should like a little help from the noble Lord is this. Under Clause 5(1)(a), the written complaint which is sent by a member of the public to a Member of another place has to claim that the member of the public has sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with action being taken by the Department concerned. The whole essence of so many of these complaints is that the person has a grievance, but until it is investigated it will be quite impossible to say whether that grievance results from maladministration or from something else. If that is so, how can he in good faith claim that there has been maladministration before the matter has been investigated? Must there be an absolutely clear case, on documentary or other evidence, which will have to be available before the investigation before the Parliamentary Commissioner can be involved at all? If so, I think this is going to be very narrow. If not, I feel that a certain amount of interpretation of this expression in the Bill is required.
I come to the second matter, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, touched. I am a little exercised about a possible clash between the work done by the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Council on Tribunals. It is true that the Parliamentary Commissioner will be an ex officio member of the Council on Tribunals and its Scottish branch, but as I understand it there will be serious overlaps in what they are meant to be doing.
I can best illustrate this by taking a field with which I am familiar, which is the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in planning matters. When the Minister determines an appeal against a planning decision
1452
made by the local planning authority, he is himself acting as a tribunal and comes within the jurisdiction of the Council on Tribunals. There are now certain rules which have to be adhered to before, at and after the inquiry before the decision is reached. If something goes wrong, even after the inquiry but before the decision, this is a matter which the Council on Tribunals is empowered to look at, and it has done so in cases like the famous Chalk Pit case in Essex. It is precisely this matter of something going wrong with the procedure, some unfair discussion or acquisition of new evidence which was not given to the person concerned so that he had no chance to comment on it. This is precisely the sort of job with which the Council on Tribunals is meant to deal and to curb or comment upon if it thinks fit.
As I understand it, this is precisely the same job that the Parliamentary Commissioner will be doing. I do not see that there is any great object, where the Council on Tribunals is already empowered to do this, in having a further jurisdiction in the Parliamentary Commissioner as well. So there is a wide field of those tribunals which are already subject to examination by the Council where I suspect all we are doing is duplicating the work, and perhaps the Parliamentary Commissioner will merely delegate the duties to the Council. Perhaps the noble Lord could say something about that point.
There is one matter where I think real trouble will result. The Council on Tribunals can look only at cases where something has gone very wrong in procedure or monstrously wrong in the decision itself. I envisage the case of a person who has had his appeal dealt with by an Inspector who has made a report in a certain direction with a recommendation, and this has been overruled by the Minister who has decided to the contrary. As a rule, what the person in those circumstances wishes to know is whether the Minister, in coming to a contrary conclusion from his Inspector, has really considered all the evidence and weighed it properly. What I envisage is that there would be cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner would be invited to comment on the possibility that the Minister had not taken full

1453
account of all the evidence in coming to the contrary conclusion, and that this was so unreasonable or so unfair in procedure that something ought to be done about it or that he had taken account of all the evidence quite properly, but had come to a conclusion which simply could not be supported on any of the facts in reaching the policy decision. These are going to be the difficult cases.
I entirely understand the distinction in the Bill, but I think this is where we are going to land up in trouble and this is where we are going to have to be very careful that the Parliamentary Commissioner should not run foul, either of the terminology of the Act or of the Select Committee, if he goes rather too far. It is for reasons of this kind that I rather welcome starting off fairly narrowly, because it is precisely on such a point that the Parliamentary Commissioner is going to get very close to matters of pure policy decision-making by Government Departments or by Ministers.
He may find that there is a limit beyond which he cannot go, and it may turn itself as a matter of practice into something which it is quite easy to decide when that point has been reached. On the other hand, to allow him to go that far and no farther at the first stage would, I should have thought, be wise, because otherwise we shall get hopelessly involved with the Commissioner dealing with the policy decisions themselves. To this extent, therefore, I very much disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who suggested that we should go straight to the further stage without any more ado.
I have one other point which I feel ought to be considered by this House. So far I think noble Lords have commented chiefly upon subsection (3) of Clause 6, which says that it shall be to a Member of the House of Commons and not to a Member of the House of Lords that a member of the public should address himself as a channel to the Parliamentary Commissioner. What may be the answer to that I do not know, and I do not propose to discuss it this evening because I suspect, again, that we shall be doing so in Committee. But what I feel is very well worthy of being raised as a matter of principle is Clause 10, which I think nobody has mentioned.
1454
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in the most exceedingly audible undertone, agreed with my noble friend Lord Redmayne when he said that the effect of this Bill was that we were becoming second-class Parliamentarians. With this the House may or may not agree so far as Back-Benchers, or indeed those who sit on the other Front Benches, are concerned. But what I do not agree with, and would not accept for a moment, is that Ministers such as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in any Administration, or any of the other senior holders of office on the Government Front Bench are second-class Ministers.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am sorry. I cannot remember in what context I was overheard, but all I meant was that necessarily an assembly not elected and partly hereditary is not of as great value as a Parliamentary institution as an elected assembly.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord has so adorned the House himself that he may have put that particular fear to rest. But I do not think this is the time to pursue the matter, and it is not the point of my argument. What I am wondering is, it the Parliamentary Commissioner is going to report only to another place, what is going to happen if he reports upon a Minister who happens to be in this House? Is it a good idea that he should investigate the Department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or another senior Minister who happens to sit in this House, go away to report to another place, and to another place only, and, I assume, have the matter discussed only by the Select Committee of another place, in front of which the noble Lord who is a Member of this House would have to go and be hauled over the coals, while so far as I can make out your Lordships' House would have absolutely no power at all in the matter? This I should have thought to be highly objectionable to the relations between the two Houses, because if a noble Lord who is a Minister and a Member of this House is being criticised, then I think primarily he should be criticised by this House.
The other point which arises from this is that, as I understand it, in that particular case the report having gone to the other place it might be difficult for us to

1455
discuss it, which must be wrong. Is there not the general point that all reports by the Parliamentary Commissioner ought really to be made to Parliament, whether or not they are instigated by Members of the House of Commons? After all, as has been made clear so many times, in another place time is desperately short. It is at any rate possible in this House to have a debate on some of these matters, and the reports would presumably not only raise particular issues but sometimes raise general matters as well.
Therefore, can the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, tell me this? Is it envisaged by the Government that debates on the reports, either special or annual, of the Parliamentary Commissioner would be in order in this House? Could we discuss them and would the Government be prepared to deal with them, or is this envisaged solely as a matter for another place? Could the noble Lord also deal with this question of the Minister who is a Member of this House and is criticised only in another place?
When this Bill was introduced the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he introduced it with due humility, and that he thought that certain parts of it were right. I still think that only certain parts of it are right, and that we can go on and improve it further as we go forward in the future stages of the Bill. This much I think we can at least agree with: we should in this matter start slowly, and in doing so we should recognise that we are starting slowly and are starting in a purely limited sphere. And when the Manifesto of the Party opposite talks in fruity phrases of the humanisation (what a revolting word that is!) of the relations between public and Government, this, if it is humanisation at all, is a very small part of the process. I do not think that this Bill ought to be over-decked with glowing praise. It must be looked upon as an experiment, and, of course, in those terms noble Lords behind me will, I am sure, support it and we will do our level best to improve it as it goes through this House. But I do not think we ought to pat ourselves on the backs this evening and say that this is anything very revolutionary.
7.18 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is one of the most difficult debates to
1456
which to reply that it has ever been my lot to suffer. I will do my best to answer as many as I can of the points that have been raised, but I fear I shall not be able to cover them all, and certainly some of these matters will come up in Committee. But before I turn to the principal points with which I am going to deal, I should like, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to correct a statement which he made at the beginning and which he has asked me to correct. He said in his speech that the recent Tribunals and Inquiries Act conferred on the Council on Tribunals the jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions, as the Whyatt Committee recommended. I hope I have got this correctly. I am sorry that my noble and learned friend is not here, but he has asked me to put this right.
I am afraid that that is not accurate, although such a misunderstanding is always encouraging to a layman like myself. All that that Act did was to bring within the Council's jurisdiction discretionary inquiries which a Minister has power, but is under no duty, to hold. These were obviously excluded, because the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 defined statutory inquiries in such a way as to exclude discretionary inquiries. But the recent Act did not deal at all with the question of decisions taken by Ministers of Departments in the exercise of a discretion. It is quite apparent that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was aware that there had been a slip, even if other noble Lords like myself regarded this as being too esoteric. However, I must apologise on behalf of my noble and learned friend, who was anxious to put this matter right. I may say that in this respect he fell into the same error as the Lord President of the Council in another place.
My Lords, I should have liked to be able to say that this had been a good debate, but I found it a rather confusing one. For this, I really must blame (I am sorry he is not here) the noble Lord who opened for the Opposition, who I think successfully—
VISCOUNTCOLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I was simply going to say that my noble friend asked me to apologise very much to the House. The debate has gone on longer than he thought it would, and he has had to go.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, treated the matter rather facetiously and I think misled the House. He particularly misled one or two noble Lords on that side of the House, I believe. In fact, I detected a touch of sour grapes about his speech, as I did about some of the speeches from the Liberal Benches. It is for this reason that I very much welcome the speech which has just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and I hope that from now on there will perhaps be a little less Party political partisanship, which I have been rather surprised to hear in some of the speeches—and here I certainly except that of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—which have been made from the other side.
I also except the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, who came here very properly to defend his local authority against what, I must say, I found one of the oddest contributions I have heard to a debate of this kind, from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I understood that his grouse against the council was that they refused to allow him certain grants, which he did not mention to the House at all. If he wishes to pursue this matter—and he had great help from my noble friend Lord Kennet, who intervened—I suggest he puts down an Unstarred Question, when no doubt the subject will be debated again and when the noble Marquess will have an opportunity to defend his local authority. I think that diversion or digression on my part was no stranger than that of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
This led on, as did other contributions, to the important question whether we ought to widen the Bill or by other means extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (to give him his full title) to cover certain areas which are at present excluded. The particular areas which were suggested were the local authorities, the Health Service and the police. Incidentally, the Prison Service, to which I think some noble Lord referred, is covered, because it is directly under the Home Secretary. But I hope noble Lords will give the Bill a rather better send-off than it has had. It is rather curious, the way the atmosphere has gone sour, partly through a misunderstanding of some of the provisions in the Bill, and I hope we
1458
shall give it a rather better send-off than apparently it is getting from the Press at the moment.
The main question which has been discussed is the interpretation of the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner with regard to discretionary decisions, and here I think I have been able to reassure at least the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood—who, of course, is obviously the Ombudsman of the consumer. This raises wider questions, as to whether we need more people like the noble Baroness, who I can well see fulfilling a post of this kind with great energy, enthusiasm and effectiveness. But while Clause 5, subsection (4), prevents the Parliamentary Commissioner from reviewing a discretionary decision by way of appeal—that is, by way of appeal against a decision where discretion is involved—it does not prevent him from investigating alleged maladministration which may have occurred in the process leading up to the decision. Nor does it prevent him, if he finds that such maladministration occurred, from reporting that it resulted in injustice, in that if it had not occurred and a different discretionary decision had resulted, this injustice might not have taken place.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked me whether I would give him a single example. I have in fact sorted out 36 examples. I do not think your Lordships would wish me to go into these at great length, but perhaps I may give an example which I think is very much of the kind with which your Lordships would be concerned. One example would be the withholding by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries of ministerial consent in relation to applications for licences to complete new slaughterhouses, or the withdrawal of a seeds certification, or similar facilities. One might say that this would be a proper act of discretion—and, indeed, in certain areas the duty may be laid upon the Minister to take such a decision. But it seems to me that it is inherent in this question—and here, perhaps, I may draw on my own experience as a Minister, admittedly in a field which is outside the Bill because it was in relation to discipline and such matters in the Armed Forces—that it must be the duty of the administrator (and this must apply in every walk of life) to arrive at his

1459
decision in a proper way. In other words, he must take into consideration every matter which he is able to take, which is within his information or about which it is within his ability to obtain information when arriving at a decision.
This is an experience which is common to anybody who is involved in administration anywhere, whether it be in industry, in the Government or in the Armed Forces. The commanding officer, the administrator or whoever it is, should not take his decision in an arbitrary and ill-considered fashion. If it is so arbitrary and so ill-considered that the Parliamentary Commissioner decides that this amounts to maladministration, then he will say so, although by that time I should hope that the Government Department concerned and the Minister concerned will have rectified it, because the failure will by then have been exposed.
This brings us very close to the direct area of responsibility of Ministers, and, indeed, of the remainder of the Civil Service. One thing, at least, of which one cannot accuse the Government service is a reluctance to put its reasons in writing. It does so to an extent which enables senior officials after the event, or even the Minister, to judge how that decision has been reached. I share the views of my noble friend Lord Silkin, and of my noble friend Lord Mitchison, in that I see no difficulty at all in applying this principle of maladministration; but I want to stress to all noble Lords who are in doubt that it will be for the Ombudsman to decide whether he himself wishes to investigate a case. The fact that a Government Department may plead that this is an exercise of Ministerial discretion will not prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner from investigating. He is a highly independent figure, and will be answerable only to himself in judging whether or not a matter should be investigated. When I say "only to himself", I mean that it will initially be his judgment, and no one will be able to say "Yea" or "Nay" to him on that.
I hope I have thrown a little more light on what is undoubtedly a subject that has caused a great deal of concern to people, I think the principle behind this Bill—and behind what I have said in this particular case—is of applying prag-
1460
matically and in practice the sort of principles that we as individuals would like to apply in our businesses, in our families or in any area in which we are responsible.
The Bill represents a very considerable advance. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that we do not want to suggest that this is a vast new development; but it is an important one. It is a new principle which we have brought into our public administration and its value is, of course, yet to be established. But there is enough evidence and enough support from those who have been concerned with and have studied these matters—in particular, one has in mind the Whyatt Committee itself—to suggest that this is well worth while. It is important to stress, as did my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that this is a British development. It is almost impossible in a debate of this kind to make valid comparisons between the systems of other countries, whether they be the Ombudsman of Denmark or of Sweden, or of New Zealand. There are limitations, for instance, on the Ombudsman in New Zealand which will not apply to the Ombudsman here.
I had hoped that there would have been a greater welcome from noble Lords on the other side of the House for the very considerable determination of the Government in going beyond the terms of the Whyatt Report, and particularly in making available not only the correspondence but the actual files of the Departments. I must admit that when these proposals were being considered by the Government I detected an anxiety about this proposition. But it struck me as absolutely essential, in order to make a fair judgment, that files should be made available. They are not available at the moment to M.P.s; and this is why I should like to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, and others with regard to the position of M.P.s. Certainly it is the practice to-day for M.P.s and Ministers for the most part to enjoy good personal relations there is, in fact, almost an element of teamwork in their dealing with the great majority of cases. Only a relatively small proportion of them appear on the Order Paper by way of Adjournment Motions or by way of Questions; the great

1461
majority are dealt with by M.P.s writing to the Minister.
From my experience I have no doubt that our present system—under which the Ministers are held personally responsible and can be brought to book—is correct and is the most important protection of the individual from oppression by the Central Government. As is known to those noble Lords who were in another place—and my noble friend Lord Silkin referred to this—it is a fact that M.P.s spend several hours a week dealing with constituency cases; and Ministers conscientiously devote the same sort of time to particular cases. But a Minister can be very busy. I can say from my own experience that one of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence had four times the amount of correspondence I had to deal with in relations with the Royal Air Force.
There are Departments where, in certain circumstances, with the best will in the world, even the most conscientious Minister may not be able to look at every aspect of the case in the files. I would not suggest for a moment that civil servants do not look at this very conscientiously; but I must say that there have been very rare cases when, after I have looked at them very closely, I have come to a different view from that to which my advisers had come. There has been the rare case when there has been definite maladministration. There was the very exceptional case where particular correspondence was entirely forgotten, and it was not until the individual concerned went to his M.P. three years later that it was revived. I sought to find out who was the blame and found that in the meantime the official concerned had died. This, like the movement of officials, may give rise to maladministration and will be properly investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I hope that in the overwhelming majority of cases the Parliamentary Commissioner will find no fault or wrong that needs to be redressed; but if there are such cases it is of the highest importance that there should be redress, for an individual's whole life and happiness may depend upon it. This is something important and real. Therefore I regard the introduction of the Parliamentary Commissioner as a further advance towards the protection of the individual.
1462
This, it seems to me, is the justification for pressing on with this. There has been criticism—in this House of a rather more moderate kind—of the action of the Government in going ahead with the appointment of the Ombudsman, or the provision of funds for the Parliamentary Commissioner by means of a call on the Civil Contingency Fund. I think it would be unwise for me to get into an argument about or to criticise the Estimates Committee, but there is very powerful justification by the Treasury of the action in regard to the setting-up of the organisation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I believe that this is something we can press on with quickly.
The Parliamentary Commissioner will not start to operate until this Bill is passed into law; but there is no reason why he should not be in a position that would enable him to operate at once—the more so, bearing in mind that there are no doubt large numbers of people, including some of the "crackpots" to whom the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack referred, who are waiting, poised, with letters to send either to the Parliamentary Commissioner (which would be an incorrect procedure) or to their M.P.s. I am quite sure that M.P.s will be glad when the Parliamentary Commissioner is set up.
Among the proposals that noble Lords have made is one that we should extend the Parliamentary Commissioner's power to cover the local authorities. I would say quite firmly to the noble Lords, Lord Reay and Lord Wade, that I should regard it as quite improper—though this is a personal opinion—to amend the Bill in this way. It seems to me that to set up a Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with local authorities, without any consultation with those local authorities, would be an act of rather excessive Central Government interference in the affairs of local authorities. I am not denying that there may be very much substance in the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Reay and Lord Wade—and, of course, in that of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale; for he gave us an example—but I am surprised that we should reckon that it was appropriate for us to proceed by an Amendment to this Bill, which, after all, is intended to investigate administrative action taken on behalf of the Crown;

1463
and although I would not in the least object—indeed, I would say that there would be a great deal of good to be said for our discussing this matter on an Amendment—I hope that no noble Lord would seriously entertain the idea, of amending, or regard it as an act of propriety to amend, this Bill to extend the responsibility of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that the point we were making was not that we wished to extend it to apply now, but that we should so amend the Bill that it would be possible to extend it to local authorities by Order in Council at a later stage, if that were found desirable.
LORD SHACKLETON: I take the point; but, my Lords, this would be such an important measure that I hope the noble Lord would not suggest that it could suitably be done by Statutory Instrument. I should have thought that anything so radical, affecting local authorities, ought to have its own legislation and its own Bill and Act of Parliament. On the whole, the Liberals tend to be upholders of local freedom, and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, should suggest that procedure by Statutory Instrument is appropriate in such cases. I say this to him with all seriousness.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I do not wish to keep interrupting the noble Lord, but perhaps it is only fair to point out that there was a Bill before this House whereby this could have been dealt with by separate legislation, and that Bill was defeated on Second Reading.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has reinforced what he said earlier. Even so, there were good reasons for defeating that Bill at the time, which is not to suggest that this is not very much an appropriate area to consider in due course. The experience we shall have with the Parliamentary Commissioner may be of great value in formulating appropriate machinery to operate in other areas, including the Health Service. I will not now go into the argument against including the Health Service, beyond saying that in my view this again would raise the most tremendous difficulties and would be bound to
1464
impinge on questions of professional and clinical responsibility. We shall have an opportunity to discuss it later. This is not to suggest that the Government are not in sympathy with the aims of noble Lords who wish to provide this further protection.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, has my noble friend left the local authority area? Because before he does so, may I ask him whether he has any comment to make on what I asked him, which was whether the Government would support an Amendment, if necessary, or if possible provide by an Order in Council for local authorities to set up their own Ombudsman?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry there are many questions which I fear I shall not answer, either because I do not know the answer or because I do not wish to go on for too long. I should have thought that there was nothing to prevent local authorities from setting up their own council, commission, or whatever the appropriate term is. Indeed, there are certain industrial organisations in existence. A firm with which I was connected had an Ombudsman who was protected from the sack and all sorts of things; and I see no reason why local authorities should not do this. But I will not do more than say that it is going to need a great deal of consideration. The previous Government—I make this point in no Party sense—spent a good many years considering this question before they finally said, "No", on grounds which were very understandable; and I think that here again we should hasten, but hasten in a steady sort of way.
My Lords, I wish I knew where to begin in attempting to answer all the various points, but I will answer a few as quickly as possible. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who implied that that there might be separate Commissioners in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord. I should like to say, however, that the Commissioner may find it convenient to place members of his staff in regional centres, including the above areas, where a lot of business may arise and out-stationing would save time. We believe that Edinburgh would

1465
be likely to be the only out-station, but we cannot say at the moment.
One point was raised by a noble Lord —unfortunately I cannot remember which noble Lord—relating to a planning case. This is what I think is of importance with regard to the powers of Ministers in relation to planning. In a case where the Minister had overruled the inspector—for instance, in a planning case—and there was an allegation of maladministration, there could be an investigation and a report by the Commissioner. So far as I can say, it would be within the discretion of the Parliamentary Commissioner to take that action.
I should like now to turn very briefly to the question whether Members of your Lordships' House should have access to the Parliamentary Commissioner. I should like to put forward a case which I prepared to put before you and I have succeeded in convincing myself that it is the right view of this matter. My noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has made clear already that this concept of the Parliamentary Commissioner is in significant respects different from that of the Swedish Ombudsman. In this country the proper channel, and in many ways the last avenue for redress to the aggrieved citizen against maladministration, is through his own Member of Parliament; and both Houses of Parliament and our Ministerial system are geared to this concept.
The normal practice, as I have already mentioned, is for Members of Parliament to write to the Minister concerned, and they do this regardless of the Party which the constituent who approaches them supports. In this way a Member of Parliament is doing much more than just seeking to endear himself to his constituent, though there is no doubt that there may be a reward for virtue at the poll in due course. But a conscientious Member of Parliament is not a letterbox. It is, I think, the view of Her Majesty's Government that in the majority of cases a Member of Parliament properly uses his discretion both as to the extent of the pressure he will bring on behalf of a constituent and the time when he will, if necessary, tell the constituent that there is no more to be done, and indeed to speak firmly about this.
1466
My Lords, Members of Parliament acquire a great deal of experience. I should not like to suggest—because Members of another House are sometimes sensitive—that they are little more than welfare officers; they might not appreciate a Member of your Lordships' House suggesting that. But, in fact, a Member of Parliament devotes a very large proportion of his time to constituency cases, and although Peers have free access to Ministers, and their cases are dealt with in exactly the same way as those of Members of Parliament, the number that go forward is but a fraction, probably less than 1 per cent. It is against this background, and having reflected on the matter, that I am convinced that in principle it is right to confine the right of approach to the Parliamentary Commissioner to Members of the House of Commons.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, speaking as does the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, and others, from the experience of having been a Member of Parliament, that over the years Members of Parliament acquire experience and are able to judge those matters which should go to the Parliamentary Commissioner. It may well be that the majority of your Lordships who attend your Lordships' House regularly are competent to make judgments of this kind, but I think that it would be undesirable to extend this power too widely if we are to retain the principle, which I believe to be important, of some area of screening and discretion. I think that this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, was stressing. For this reason, although I can appreciate the feeling in your Lordships' House, and I share that feeling as a Member of your Lordships' House, I think it is correct that this power should be confined to Members of another place.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, would my noble friend comment on the procedure in cases where a Member of your Lordships' House happens to know of matters which require investigation? In that case, what is the Peer to do? Is he to write direct to the Minister or to his Member of Parliament?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should hope that the noble Lord would have the judgment and experience to decide that for himself. No right is being

1467
taken from him. He can write to the Minister, and no doubt he will continue to do so. If he gets no satisfaction, he can refer the matter to, or advise the complainant to approach, the Member of Parliament concerned. This seems to me to be perfectly satisfactory. I would stress that no rights are being taken away from your Lordships' House.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked me some interesting questions, but I have not the answers to them. The noble Viscount raised the interesting constitutional aspect of the position of a Minister in your Lordships' House in relation to a Committee of another place. The noble Viscount will excuse me if I do not reply until I can obtain a considered answer to the point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I entirely excuse the noble Lord. It is my fault for not having given him notice of the question. I think that he would probably agree that it is an important point of principle, which I do not think has been dealt with before and should not be lost sight of when we are considering other aspects of your Lordships' participation.
LORD SHACKLETON: I agree, my Lords. It may be that my noble and learned friend would have liked to press an opinion, but it is a constitutional issue on which I should wish to have further advice before expressing a view. I have taken long enough and answered practically none of the questions, for which I apologise to your Lordships. I think that we have all learned a lot. In attempting to answer the questions, I have learned a good deal, because this is a difficult area. It is very much an area of experiment, as I hope your Lordships will recognise. The important thing is that the Parliamentary Commissioner will be able to establish his own approaches to these problems and, as we know, we have appointed an individual who is highly acceptable and is widely experienced in the affairs of Parliament.
I am grateful that your Lordships are not going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope that when we come to the Amendments we shall be able to discuss them fully and freely. In the course of doing this we may ourselves learn more about the Bill, and this in
1468
itself may make it easier for the public to understand a Bill which, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead said, is not very intelligible to those who have not studied it in detail.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

HARTLEPOOL ORDER 1966
7.54 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, this Order creates a county borough, to be known as the County Borough of Hartlepool, by amalgamating the existing County Borough of West Hartlepool with the Borough of Hartlepool and some adjoining parts of the rural district of Stockton. It is an area which is to all intents and purposes a single township, is administered partly by a county borough council, a county council, a borough council, a rural district council and some parish councils; and it is this disgregate system of local administration which it is proposed to roll up into one county borough.
I think that at this time of night I should not dwell long on the provisions of the Order, but content myself with saying that I will answer any questions which noble Lords may wish to ask about it. I beg to move that the Hartlepool Order 1966 be approved.
Moved, That the Hartlepool Order 1966 be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
7.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want to ask questions about this Order so much as to elicit from the noble Lord if this is one of the Orders which was mentioned by the Secretary of State in another place as arising out of the 1958 Act review and as having come forward at a suitable time in relation to the announcement of the

1469
formation of the Royal Commission. The new county borough will have a population of approximately 96,700. This is dangerously near the minimum of 100,000 needed for a county borough, and I suppose that the same criticism is implicit here as was brought forward in the case of Torbay—namely, that we are setting up a relatively small county borough at a time when these matters are being looked at again. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me if the population is expected to increase and, if so, to what extent; or is the new borough going to have a stationary population for the foreseeable future? Although it is not a matter on which I would wish to detain your Lordships, this is another slightly unfortunate incident to happen at this time when the Royal Commission are beginning their labours.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the new county borough is one of the fruits of the review instituted under the 1958 Act. It is covered by the statement of my right honourable friend the then Minister of Housing on February 10, 1966, when, in announcing the setting up of a Royal Commission, he said that decisions already announced would be carried out and proposals, including proposals for the
1470
formation of county boroughs, which had not yet elicited a decision from him would be considered on their merits in view of the forthcoming setting up of the Royal Commission. This is one of the latter class. The proposal was considered on its merits and was deemed to be desirable.
On the question of population. I think that it is wrong to regard 100,000 as any kind of hard and fast minimum. The noble Viscount will know that there are county boroughs with populations as small as 64,000. This will still be a rather small county borough, but there will be something like 30 smaller in the country when it comes into existence. The population is expected to rise in the sense that the new county borough will include a stretch of flat land between Hartlepool and Teesside, which is likely to attract industrial development not far from now, and this will doubtless lead to a sensible increase in population.

LONDON BRIDGE BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.