Sitting of 24 January 1967

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

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND 1965–66
Accounts ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund. 1965–66, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1966, and (2) the distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TECHNOLOGY

    Shipbuilding Industry
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Technology what consultation he has had with the Geddes Committee on changes in the outlook for shipbuilding since the Geddes Report was written.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): None, Sir. The Geddes Committee was disbanded when it completed its Report. My right hon. Friend is, of course, in contact with the Shipbuilding Industry Board through the Chairman.
    Mr. Digby: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recognise that there have been some changes and that the prospects of home shippers ordering at home are no better than they were—indeed, are perhaps a little worse—and will he also recognise that the Geddes Report is now not entirely up to date?
    Mr. Dell: The main recommendations of the Geddes Report are certainly up to date in respect of, for example, the importance of amalgamations in this industry. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we will shortly be introducing legislation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. Friend asserting that the shipbuilders, through the Shipbuilding Conference, have never made any representation to the Ministry or to any other Department—perhaps to the Board of Trade—since the Geddes Report was published?
    Mr. Dell: Certainly there have been representations, as my right hon. Friend said last week. Their representations on the subject of home credit facilities are now being considered.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that British shipbuilding is losing the home market because it is unable to offer credit terms competitive with those available to British owners abroad; and whether he will take immediate steps to extend favourable credit terms to British owners ordering British ships.
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to review and bring the recommendations of the Geddes Committee up to date, in view of the rapidly changing and deteriorating situation facing the British shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the position, but these current difficulties emphasise the need for the industry to press on with its plans for reorganisation on the lines proposed by the Geddes Committee.
    Mr. Digby: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the pressure of the Opposition for better credit facilities is very reasonable indeed and that the Treasury is probably again being penny wise and pound foolish in this matter? Will he press his right hon. Friend to stand up to the Treasury in this matter?
    Mr. Dell: We are getting ahead with this question of credit facilities for home owners as rapidly as possible. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the lack of credit facilities is not the whole of this problem. The competitiveness of the industry is of very great importance.
    Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that what is needed is a speeding up of the implementation of the Geddes recommendations, that the industry is waiting for this to happen and that we in the

    1237
    North-East are particularly looking forward to this happening?
    Mr. Dell: We have maintained the timetable of the Geddes Committee in every respect and, as I said earlier, legislation will be introduced very shortly.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would the hon. Gentleman press his right hon. Friend to exercise pressure on the Leader of the House to implement the pledge, given a long time ago, that we would have a proper debate on the shipbuilding industry? That pledge has never been implemented. Is it not time that the Government kept one pledge, if they cannot keep any others?
    Mr. Dell: I am sure that the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, when it is introduced, will give the hon. Lady an opportunity to speak on this subject.
    Mr. Bagier: Would my hon. Friend also press the President of the Board of Trade to try to speed up the machinery of the E.C.G.D. procedure, which is causing serious difficulty to some shipbuilders in obtaining suitable credit terms for export orders?
    Mr. Dell: I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to me any particular case he has in mind where slowness on the part of E.C.G.D. is holding up orders.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Technology what recommendations contained in the Geddes Report have been implemented.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): There is nothing more to report since I answered the Questions by the hon. Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) on 17th January last.—[Vol 739, c. 21.]
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that one of the principal recommendations of the Geddes Report was the need for improved credit facilities for British shipbuilders? Is he aware that that is supported not only by Opposition Members, but by many Members on this side of the House? Is he also aware that far too many orders are going abroad, to the detriment of the British shipbuilding industry?
    Mr. Benn: I am very well aware of what my right hon. Friend says. He will,
    1238
    however, be aware that the credit schemes that were included in the Geddes Report were linked to the regrouping. Since the Question refers to the Geddes Report, perhaps I might take the opportunity of reinforcing the need for these shipyards to come together with proposals for the Shipbuilding Industry Board so that we can really strengthen British industry.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that unemployment has risen to 8 per cent. in Northern Ireland due to the Westminster Government's economic policy? Which of the Geddes Recommendations will be implemented to help Harland and Wolff, of Belfast?
    Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Member knows that the future of the British shipbuilding industry and the employment that it can give to those who work in shipyards depend upon creating really strong units. It was upon this that the Geddes Report concentrated. This is central in our policy for the shipbuilding industry and I hope that when the Bill shortly comes before the House it will have the support of both sides.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on an early occasion.

    Machine Tools
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Technology what percentages of machine tools manufactured in Great Britain were numerically controlled in 1965; what are the estimates for 1970; and what steps he is taking to accelerate the conversion from conventional to numerical control.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): In the 12 months ending in September, 1966, the proportion was 0·36 per cent. by number, and 2·5 per cent. by value. These proportions are increasing, but it is not possible to make an accurate forecast for 1970. The Department's preproduction order and "trial period" scheme should increase demand.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a very close correlation between the spreading of numerically controlled machine tool

    1239
    manufacture and the whole process of re-equipping and modernising industry? Is he aware that in the United States this is expanding by 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. per year, and that it is estimated that by 1970, 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the total will be numerically controlled, and that similar growth is being made in many other industrial countries?
    Dr. Bray: I am aware of the importance of numerically controlled machine tools, both in their production and getting them in use in workshops, and in making sure that engineering design is modified to take advantage of numerically controlled techniques. We are encouraging their use over the whole range of manufacturing.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what is the percentage change in the recorded value of net new home orders for machine tools during January-November, 1966, compared with the corresponding figure for 1965; what is the percentage change after allowing for inflation during this period; how these changes compare with the targets or forecasts contained in the National Plan; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Bray: Recorded orders were 6 per cent. lower in 1966. It is not possible to calculate what exact allowance for higher prices can be made in the value of orders.
    The annual rate of growth of output envisaged in the National Plan for the period 1964–70 was 7·8 per cent. As the Machine Tools E.D.C. has reported, the actual growth in output in 1965 was 11·9 per cent.
    Mr. Biffen: Is not this decline of 6 per cent. as compared with the promise of steady growth at the rate of 7·8 per cent. an extraordinarily pathetic performance? What does the hon. Gentleman expect may be the pattern to emerge during this year?
    Dr. Bray: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman followed the Answer. The increase in output in 1965 was 11·9 per cent. In the first 11 months of 1966 it was 14 per cent. It is deliveries we have to look at in machine tools as well as orders.

    Relations with Universities (Advisory Board)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Technology if he will give the terms of reference for the recently established Advisory Board on Relations with the Universities.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology whether the Advisory Board on Relations with the Universities which he has set up, under the chairmanship of Dr. S. C. Curran, F.R.S., will make an annual report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: I will circulate the terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The Board is still at an early stage of its work and I should like to consider the question of an annual report later.
    Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he consider the possibility of relating two other aspects of this problem: the financing of research projects and the need for better communications between technological institutes, either now or later?
    Mr. Benn: The terms of reference already include all matters which affect relations between the Ministry of Technology and the universities. The second point raised by my hon. Friend is one of the major jobs which the Ministry was set up to do.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do the terms of reference include the problem of enabling those who are at present mostly engaged in military science research engaging in civil science research?
    Mr. Benn: Not really, because that comes under a different heading. However, one of the purposes of transferring the Ministry of Aviation to my Department is to make this sort of thing more possible.
    Mr. David Price: Would not the Minister agree that the most important single factor for promoting faster technological growth in relation to the universities is the need to get firms closer to the departments of universities? We have gone beyond the days of vice-chancellors and the C.B.I. having great

    1241
    conferences. Surely this work must be done on the ground, so to speak, with the two sides being brought together.
    Mr. Benn: Certainly, and that is why 59 liaison officers are situated in our technical colleges and universities. We have it in mind that the universities should play a fuller part in the areas of the country in which they operate; and I am glad to hear that this idea carries the support of the hon. Gentleman.
    Following is the information:
    Terms of reference of the Advisory Board on Relations with the Universities are:
    "To consider and report upon proposals for the formation and development of Institutes of Advanced Technology and to keep under review collaboration between the Ministry of Technology and the universities and other higher educational establishments on projects designed to promote technological progress in industry."

    Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister of Technology what proposals he will make to the nuclear power engineering industry to reorganise the existing consortia system to ensure the advancement of the British advanced gas-cooled and high-temperature reactor systems, with a view to exploiting fully the economic advantages available in domestic application, and the export potential in this field.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made by the Atomic Energy Authority in the export of advanced gas-cooled reactor atomic power stations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: The promotion of A.G.R. exports is handled by the British Nuclear Export Executive, in which the A.E.A. and the three nuclear consortia work together. The A.G.R. is already being considered in one major tender competition and there are a number of further prospects in the offing. I am at this moment considering how best to increase the efficiency of the nuclear industry and promote export business. I am arranging to have talks with the industry.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he agree that we need a much stronger export organisation to exploit A.G.R. and our world lead in nuclear power, and that such an organisation should have a
    1242
    nationally agreed policy towards existing and anticipated world markets?
    Mr. Benn: That and similar considerations led me to suggest the talks which will shortly be taking place with the industry.
    Mrs. Short: Would my right hon. Friend say whether or not it is correct that it is 18 months since we sold a nuclear reactor? Is he aware that there is now considerable competition from America and that there is great concern that our lead in this field is being whittled away?
    Mr. Benn: I am aware of all those considerations. That is why we are pressing ahead with these discussions. We wish to see how our export effort can be strengthened.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last September the Board of Management of O.E.C.D. high-temperature reactor project "Dragon" announced that, on the information available from the performance of "Dragon" so far, it would be carrying out an assessment of the prospects for a nuclear power station of this type and that the results of that assessment would be available early in 1967? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this report will be published and whether he considers that high-temperature reactors have a place in the British nuclear power programme?
    Mr. Benn: That is a separate question.
    Mr. Lubbock: No. Iit is a part of the Question.
    Mr. Benn: With respect, a specific O.E.C.D. project, the "Dragon" project, raises a specific question; and there is a later Question on the Order Paper on that subject. However, I have in mind the considerations put by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Price: While agreeing that this problem is not as easy as the Question might suggest, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the C.E.G.B., for perfectly sound reasons, has been encouraging the nuclear engineering industry to go for very large stations, whereas at the moment such export orders as do exist appear to be for relatively small stations? What views has the right hon. Gentleman about how

    1243
    we could marry these quite separate needs together for the benefit of our exports?
    Mr. Benn: It is true that the A.G.R. involves considerable capital cost. However, the steam generating heavy water reactor which is going up a Winfrith is of a different kind and may have wider application. Coming along also is the fast reactor. Looking ahead to our export effort, which I hope will be vigorous, we must consider the new possibilities opened up by new reactor systems.

    Nuclear-Propelled Merchant Vessel
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress towards the construction of a British-built prototype nuclear-propelled merchant vessel.
    Mr. Dell: There is nothing that I can add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 20th December, 1966.— [Vol 738, c. 211.]
    Mr. Wall: In view of the fact that five nations are now building or planning to build nuclear ships, none of which will be economic, can the hon. Gentleman give any information about what is happening in research or forward planning to keep Britain in this race, which is of great importance to us as a maritime nation?
    Mr. Dell: As the hon. Member will realise, the core of this problem is the production of a small reactor suitable for this purpose. The Atomic Energy Authority is keeping its eye on all work that is being done in this respect, but until the industry comes forward with a real risk-sharing project I do not think that the Government can take any action.
    Mr. Hooley: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this country has a unique combination of experitise in both nuclear power and shipbuilding? Is it not high time that we took advantage of this fact to exploit this field of technology?
    Mr. Dell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we are leaders in both these fields. Nevertheless, we still have to produce a small reactor which will enable us to build a ship that will operate economically.

    Efficiency and Productivity (Consultancy Service)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to set up a Government consultancy service to assist firms to raise their efficiency and productivity.
    Mr. Benn: My Department's "Business Bureau" is already providing services of this kind, a list of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following the National Productivity Conference the wide range of Government and other advisory services, existing and planned, is being examined in collaboration with the National Economic Development Office, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is need, however, to extend this service? Does he agree that one of the great problems of British industry is the number of medium and small firms with "old-boy" type managements who have no idea how or where they are going? Would my right hon. Friend further agree that the pioneer work done by the D.S.I.R. shows that an outstanding Government service can be provided in this direction at remarkably low cost?
    Mr. Benn: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. The fact is that this is being pressed ahead as rapidly as possible. There are 100 qualified people working in the regional liaison offices, 59 industrial liaison officers in the universities and colleges, various specialist national services and procurement advisory services, and £1 million has been put into the Production Engineering Advisory Service which begins within a few weeks. Although I recognise the importance of this matter, it has to be set in the wider context of voluntary and other Government services as well. We are well aware of it.
    Sir C. Osborne: Does the Minister expect the fall in national productivity, which last month fell by 4½ per cent. to the lowest it has been for two years, to continue? If so, what more can he do to stop this fall?
    Mr. Benn: In so far as the question relates to the general economic situation,

    1245
    it goes beyond the ambit of the Question. I assure the hon. Member, however, that one of the effects of the present difficulties has been to encourage a number of firms to come and seek advice to see whether they could not escape from their own difficulties by raising productivity. This has been very encouraging.
    Following is the list:
    "Business Bureau"
    The services of the Ministry of Technology, which together can be regarded as being a "Business Bureau", fall under three broad headings:
    I. Regional Liaison services
    Regional Offices
    The Department's own regional staff together with Industrial Liaison Officers amount to some 100 qualified people. The Ministry has nine Regional Offices. It is an important function of the Regional Offices to help industry make full and proper use of the advisory and research facilities of the Ministry and the Research Associations. They also serve to co-ordinate the work of the Industrial Liaison Centres.
    Industrial Liaison Centres
    These centres based on technical colleges and universities and financed for the greater part by the Ministry, each have one or more ILOs who are members of the college staff. They are responsible for maintaining contact with local firms, particularly the smaller ones, and encouraging them to make greater use of existing scientific and technical knowledge and services. There are at present 59 such Centres.
    II. Specialist national services
    These are services to users of products and processes common to a wide range of industries. They are organised nationally because they need to draw on centralised scarce resources of manpower or machinery. They are in some cases organised by an independent body and will vary from being wholly financed by the Department to being independent of Government support. The aim will be for these services eventually to become as nearly as possible self-supporting with fees being charged on the basis of cost and the value of the benefit to the individual user. The continuation of a subsidy would need to be justified on the basis that the service conferred wider benefits to the community than those derived by the individual user.
    These services include:
    Standards
    A whole range of inspection, testing and authentication services are being developed. Examples are the British Calibration Service, BSI's Kitemark scheme, and the Burghard scheme for standardising specifications for electronic components. The foundation of these schemes is the work on standards by BSI, which is of course supported by the Ministry.
    Procurement Advisory Services
    This form of service would only be applicable to the public sector. At present it is limited to the Computer Advisory Service.
    Technological Services
    There are a number of these specialised services, some independent, some grant aided and some wholly financed by the Department. Under this heading are included the National Computing Centre (to be supported by a Government grant-in-aid for the first few years), and the "Approaching Automation" campaign.
    Several of the R.A.'s provide technological services for a wide range of industries. Outstanding examples are the Welding R.A., S.I.R.A., and P.E.R.A. The last named organisation will operate for the Ministry the Production Engineering Advisory Service due to commence in the spring of this year. S.I.R.A. provides a consulting service to industry in general through its SIRAID scheme.
    Central Facilities
    There are cases when sharing of expensive facilities can produce substantial economies. Examples are the Scottish Research Reactor Centre, N.P.L. Ship Division and wind tunnel facilities and N.E.L. test rigs.
    III. Industry services
    These are advisory and information services provided for individual industries and dealing with technology, management and industry etc.
    Advisory services covering one or more of these fields are an important feature of the 50 R.A.'s (of which 48 receive grants from the Department).
    Information and advisory work has always been a major factor of the work of the Ministry's research stations which have a substantial and growing contact with firms. Information and advice are provided without charge although for more substantial investigations a charge will generally be made.
    In general the purpose of the Ministry is to act as a catalyst in the development of the closest contact between the Government's establishments, the R.A.'s, the universities and technical colleges, and the firms themselves.
    It is intended that these industry services should be reviewed industry by industry and technology by technology with a view to strengthening their impact on industry's problems.
    Review of needs for information
    The Department is intending to initiate a pilot exercise in the course of the next year to determine the information needs of firms and the ways to supply them.

    Hovercraft (Research and Development)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to coordinate and rationalise the activities of

    1247
    the various bodies and groups responsible for the development of air-cushion vehicles, in view of the fact that these bodies and groups are all now within the ambit of his Department.
    Mr. Benn: I am considering the arrangements for the co-ordination of Government research and development in hovercraft. As a first step the National Physical Laboratory will take over responsibility on 1st April for the Hythe Technical Group, a subsidiary body of the National Research Development Corporation. The Hythe Group is the largest Government-financed research and development unit now working in this field and the broad outlines for its future have been agreed. With permission, I will circulate further details of these arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    I am sure that these arrangements will greatly help to increase the impetus behind hovercraft technology and development.
    Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister's reply mean that as from 1st April the National Research Development Corporation will have no responsibility for the development of the hovercraft industry?
    Mr. Benn: No, certainly not. The relationship between N.R.D.C. and Hovercraft Development Ltd. and others in this field will remain. Here, however, was a centre of research which, we felt, should not be limited to one of the developments but should be generally available. I would greatly welcome further proposals for future development of hovercraft from other sources.
    Mr. David Price: When H.D.L. comes under the National Physical Laboratory, will it become a division of the N.P.L. or will it retain the degree of managerial independence which it enjoyed as long as it was a subsidiary of the N.R.D.C., which all would agree had value?
    Mr. Benn: I ought to explain that H.D.L. is not coming under the N.P.L., but the Hythe Technical Unit is. This means that Government research in hovercraft will be available for others who want to move into this field. H.D.L.'s position remains unaffected.
    Following are the details:
    The Hovercraft Technical Group at Hythe of Hovercraft Development Ltd., a subsidiary body of the National Research Development Corporation, will come under the control of a separate Hovercraft Unit to be set up by the National Physical Laboratory. A section of this unit will be attached to the Inter-Services Hovercraft Trials Unit of the Ministry of Defence. The N.P.L. unit will deal with all forms of hovercraft and with other applications of the air-cushion principle, including hover-trains.
    Arrangements for co-ordination between the N.P.L. Hovercraft Unit and other Government R. & D. establishments are under consideration. The co-ordinated Research and Development programmes will cover both civil and military aspects of the work and will be undertaken in close co-operation with N.R.D.C. and the industry.
    N.R.D.C. will continue through H.D.L. to manage patent rights for hovercraft and hover-train inventions, including future inventions derived from the work of the Government's own establishments, and to consider applications for licences. It will also be prepared to consider new proposals for financial assistance to industry for the development of hovercraft.

    Scientific Manpower (Report)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology what consideration he is giving to the recommendation made in the Interim Report of the Working Group on Manpower Parameters for Scientific Growth, Command Paper No. 3102, that further attention should be given to meeting demand in industry and the schools at least in part by redeployment from other sectors such as Government research establishments.
    Mr. Dell: This recommendation is being taken fully into consideration in reviewing the programmes of work and staff requirements at Government research establishments under my right hon. Friend's control.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sombre fact that in many secondary schools in Scotland and England, serious teaching for senior pupils in physics and chemistry is slowly grinding to a halt for want of teachers? Will he make special efforts to see that many in research departments for which his Department is responsible and who are, perhaps, over the age of 40 or 45 will be given the opportunity of teaching in grammar and comprehensive schools?
    Mr. Dell: If the current reviews which we are undertaking show that the demand

    1249
    of Government research establishments for qualified manpower might properly be reduced, this could benefit school teaching and industry. My hon. Friend will, however, remember that there are other difficulties. There can be no question of direction of staff and there are difficulties, for example, in the matter of relative salaries.

    Research and Development (European Co-operation)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for further co-operation with European countries in research and development in technological industries.
    Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, in their discussions with the Governments of the Six about our possible accession to the European Economic Community, are exploring the scope for increased technological collaboration within Europe and best way of doing it.
    Mr. Mills: Is it not vital for our industries and their continual advancement that this co-operation should take place and, more than that, that it is a sort of preparation for our entry into the Common Market? Will the Minister therefore redouble his efforts for his Ministry to see that this co-operation becomes a reality?
    Mr. Benn: As the hon. Member knows, a number of collaborative efforts are already operating between firms in this country and firms on the Continent. There are also certain inter-Governmental collaborative efforts. When I was in Bonn recently talking to Herr Stoltenberg, the Minister for Scientific Research, I discussed with him another aspect of this problem, namely, the possibility of getting computer standardisation so as to make possible a further strengthening of the European computer industry. I think that in these ways the objectives of European industrial strength will be met.
    Mr. David Price: Would not the Minister agree that the prospects of purely technological collaboration are limited unless we get right the commercial, economic and political infrastructure as proposed in the Treaty of Rome?
    Mr. Benn: It certainly has been the experience of my Department, having been set up as a Ministry of Technology, that in two years it has developed into a Ministry of Industry. I suspect that Europe in a sense requires a Ministry of Technology or some equivalent organisation. In so far as that is what the hon. Member is suggesting, I greatly welcome it.

    Hovercraft Technologists (Employment in United States)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology how many leading hovercraft engineers and designers have left British firms and organisations to take up employment with their American competitors; and if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to ensure that British patents and "know-how" are not given to their American competitors by means of a brain drain of this type.
    Mr. Dell: Exact statistics are not available; but I know of six hovercraft technologists who have left this country to work in the U.S.A. during the last four or five years.
    An American company already has licences from this country to manufacture hovercraft.
    Mr. Osborn: Where Government finance has been used to develop the hovercraft and other ventures, what steps have been taken to ensure that senior engineers, technicians and technologists are bound by contract or agreement not to take part in similar activities in this country or elsewhere? Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into this situation to ensure that when we develop technologies of this type, there are contracts which bind people to Government finance as well as other technological developments?
    Mr. Dell: I will certainly look into what the hon. Member says. I should, however, emphasise that American patents have been granted to us which correspond to the British hovercraft patents and are protected by American law.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the House has been told by the Prime Minister and other Ministers during the past two years that when the TSR2 contract was cancelled

    1251
    the engineers engaged upon it would go into the export business, but that this simply has not happened? Why do the Government shirk the responsibility of finding out from the firms involved how, when and where these men go when they leave these very important companies?
    Mr. Dell: In this case, we know where these men have gone. I remind the hon. Member, however, that the reason why there is a lack of statistics in this area is because when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office they discontinued these statistics.

    Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what consideration he is now giving to the construction of a 300 megawatt steam generating heavy water reactor; what estimate he has made of the capital cost per kilowatt, and the generating cost of each unit of electricity; and what information has already been gained from the steam generating heavy water reactor at Winfrith Heath.
    Dr. Bray: The construction of the prototype S.G.H.W. reactor at Winfrith is on schedule and it should be on power this autumn. Data on it is being prepared, and costs forecast are promising. Discussions with potential customers are in progress.
    Mr. Osborn: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the future for larger units based on information gained so far? Is not this another break through of which we can be proud?
    Dr. Bray: Yes, indeed it is a great achievement of which there is much to be proud. It would, however, be premature to venture cost estimates even for the present reactor until it is actually on steam and the prototype has been proved.

    Whisker Technology
    Mr. Brian Parkynasked the Minister of Technology how much Government money was spent last year on whisker chemistry; and whether he will intensify research effort in this field in the future.
    Dr. Bray: Government expenditure last year on whisker technology was approximately £85,000 shared between Ministry
    1252
    of Aviation, the Atomic Energy Authority, and the Science Research Council. The future of these programmes is currently under review.
    Mr. Parkyn: In thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether, in view of the tremendous future importance of these new types of metal, he will ensure that there is adequate liaison and co-operation between those carrying out work in universities and industry and also in Government establishments?
    Dr. Bray: The Ministry of Technology has had no request from industry for sponsorship of work in this field. It is an expensive field of research and we would be interested in any approaches. As for co-ordination with the universities, there is at present sponsorship amounting to a cost of £5,000, and we would certainly accept that there is scope for expansion here.

    Slide Rules (Pamphlet)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Technology why he advertised in a pamphlet entitled, "The Engineers Day," a large picture of a slide rule obviously of foreign manufacture, when British-made slide rules are freely available.
    Mr. Benn: I wrote fully to the hon. Member on 6th December on this subject and there is really nothing more I can say.
    Mr. King: In thanking the Minister for that generous expression of regret, may I ask him to make amends by conceding that excellent British slide rules are made in Weymouth, in Dorset?
    Mr. Benn: There is no doubt at all about the quality of British slide rules.
    Mr. Shinwell: Why should my right hon. Friend apologise for buying foreign slide rules? After all, are we not going into the Common Market in the near future?
    Mr. Benn: Except that in this case no foreign slide rule was bought. The designer picked out a group of slide rules for the poster. He did not notice that this was a foreign slide rule; it did not have the name on it. It passed a Committee including a representative of the engineering institutions, who did not notice the

    1253
    fact. As a result of the hon. Member's activity, it has now received wide publicity.

    Rootes Motors Ltd. (Linwood Factories)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a further statement on the effects of the Chrysler takeover on the employment prospects of those now engaged at Rootes' Linwood factories and the additional numbers who may expect to be employed there.
    Mr. Benn: I am informed that Rootes Motors Ltd. plan to increase considerably the output of its Linwood plants. These developments will involve an increase in employment of some 4,000–5,000 phased over about five years.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following his statement last Tuesday that employment at Rootes at Linwood would increase by several thousand, a Rootes spokesman stated that those figures were purely speculative? Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on that?
    Mr. Benn: I am glad to say that I am not answerable for what Rootes say, but my understanding of the expansion plan is that the employment will rise by this amount in the period I have mentioned. The pressings plant, which has been on a four-day week, went on to full time today. The car plant, which has been on a four-day week, went on to full time yesterday. Therefore, employment has already increased.
    Mr. David Price: What is the right hon. Gentleman's understanding of how the Rootes-Chrysler plans for Linwood fit in with its plans for Coventry? Is there to be a similar expansion for Coventry? Is Coventry to run down? Or is it to remain at its present level?
    Mr. Benn: The fact that we were involved in the negotiations with Rootes and Chrysler does not make me answerable for the full development of the plans. The position, as was explained clearly last week, is that there is a Rootes expansion plan and that Linwood, in which the Government have considerable investment of public money, was specifically mentioned. It is the hope that Rootes
    1254
    will grow and develop, and this is one reason why the I.R.C. director has been put on the board.

    National Computing Centre
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to ensure the maximum co-operation between the National Computing Centre at Manchester and the proposed Institute of Computer Sciences and Cybernetics shortly to be established in London.
    Dr. Bray: I have no doubt that the National Computing Centre will seek to co-operate appropriately with all bodies established in fields related to its work.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the Government's decision to attempt to separate science from technology, putting science under the Department of Education and Science and technology under the Minister's Department, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before this Institute is set up the Government will consult Dr. Rose, who I understand is to be the chairman of the organising body of this new Institute, to see whether he and Professor Black together will advise the Ministers as to the best Ministerial responsibilities, in so far as they exist?
    Dr. Bray: The proposed Institute is an entirely unofficial body. Co-ordination in the official field between the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology is extremely close over the whole field of computer applications; and through the Computer Board, the National Computing Centre and other advisory bodies there is very effective co-ordination.

    Dragon Project
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Technology what action Her Majesty's Government are taking, as Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, to obtain an early decision from those countries which are also members of Euratom that will enable the Dragon Project at Winfrith to be continued until 1970.
    Mr. Benn: The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, as the United Kingdom signatory to the Dragon Agreement, has been active in seeking to extend

    1255
    the Dragon Agreement to 1970. Her Majesty's Government are supporting the Authority by representation through our Embassies in Euratom countries.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as long ago as May of last year the chief executive of the Dragon Project, at a lecture in London, said that it was hoped that an early decision would be made on this matter then? We are now well into 1967. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman specifically seeking to take with the Euratom countries to get them to agree to a third five-year plan?
    Mr. Benn: I have described one method I have adopted. I also discussed it when I took the Chair at the Euratom United Kingdom Continuing Committee. I took it up with Herr Stoltenberg in Bonn last week. There is no doubt that it is important, but the hon. Gentleman will have to recognise that, if he is advocating international organisations on a European pattern, the budgetary problems when five Governments are discussing what they will pay over a five-year period may well create serious difficulties for projects of this kind.

    Hovertrains (Development)
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a report upon the development work being carried out by Hovercraft Development Limited, of Hythe, upon the hovertrain.
    Mr. Dell: Hovercraft Development Ltd. has been continuing experimental work on the hovertrain and is in discussion with the Railways Board.
    Mr. Price: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recognise that the French are going ahead with M. Jean Bertin's aerotrain and are having a 10 kilometre trial on it and that ours is technically on paper superior? Could we get a move on in doing an experiment with British Railways, because this offers tremendous prospects for inter-provincial passenger travel?
    Mr. Dell: I am aware of the interesting work going on in France on this matter. A joint study is now being undertaken with the Ministry of Transport on future prospects for hovertrains in this country.
    Mr. Fortescue: Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that this work is among the work being taken over by the National Physical Laboratory on 1st April?
    Mr. Dell: I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

    Defence Projects (Scientists and Engineers)
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence to redeploy within, or to release from, the public service qualified scientists and engineers who are no longer required on defence projects, including those employed by the Atomic Energy Authority.
    Mr. Dell: We are dealing with this problem by continuing collaboration with other Government Departments and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
    Mr. Price: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House an undertaking that at some point in the Department's studies it will give some solid information to the House?
    Mr. Dell: I can now inform the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of reductions in the defence programme, several hundred qualified scientists and engineers have been released from the Atomic Energy Authority since 1962. The hon. Gentleman will find some information on this subject in the recent Report of the Willis Jackson Committee.

    Television Rental Charges
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Technology on what grounds he allowed Granada T.V. Rentals to adjust their agreements with customers in such a way as in effect to increase prices and if he will now make a statement on television rental charges.
    Mr. Benn: This company has made no approach to my Department regarding these adjustments to its charges. I have, however, arranged for enquiries to be made.
    My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and I have agreed that,

    1257
    in view of the widespread public interest in this subject, it would be appropriate for a general examination of the structure of costs and charges in the industry to be undertaken by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be considerable satisfaction with that Answer and we await the outcome of the investigations?
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying this. There have been a number of letters about it. Some difficulties have arisen because charges which were raised before 20th July came up only when individual rental arrangements became due for renewal and, therefore, not all the cases which have been brought to my attention have indicated a rise in charges since July.
    Mr. Biffen: The Minister says that he has not been approached by this company. Will he none the less confirm that at law there is absolutely no requirement whatever on this company to have informed the Government of its proposal to increase charges?
    Mr. Benn: That is perfectly correct, but since a Question was tabled about it I explained that I had not been approached by this company but was making inquiries. There is no confusion at all about the legal position here.
    Mr. Gardner: When my right hon. Friend is undertaking this study, will he also make a study of the type of literature which is being issued by television rental companies to their customers about increased prices? I am sure that he will agree that this amounts to little less than political propaganda and that some of the figures are very doubtful indeed.
    Mr. Benn: I am not making this inquiry. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I are referring it to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Those increases in rental which have come to our attention have always been below that which would have been justified by the taxation changes which were permitted.

    NATIONAL FINANCE

      Bates v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue
      Mr. Moreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the observations of the House of Lords in the case of Bates and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on 8th December, 1966, what steps he will take to correct the apparent injustice of the present law.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The observations to which the hon. Member refers are being considered.
      Mr. More: Does not the Chancellor think that this is something of a scandal? Fifteen years ago attention was drawn by the House of Lords to the unsatisfactory state of the law. In those 15 years, nothing has been done.
      Mr. MacDermot: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures, but it is perhaps better that I reserve comment until our consideration of those observations is completed.
      Mrs. Thatcher: While the Financial Secretary is considering this case, would he also consider whether he should publish the basis upon which the Inland Revenue has been invoking these Sections and the basis on which it has left them alone? He will recollect that it has not invoked Sections 408 and 411 on all occasions.
      Mr. MacDermot: Again, I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. There are different interpretations of this Section which have been advocated by various people, and the Inland Revenue has never sought to interpret the Section in the way in which some people have suggested it can and should be and criticised the Section consequently.

      Portland Beach (Removal of Pebbles)
      Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a direction to the Crown Commissioners to bring to a speedy end that contract which enables pebbles to be removed from Portland beach.
      Mr. MacDermot: The contract in question ended on 31st December last.
      Mr. King: Is renewal of the contract under discussion, as apparently it has not yet been renewed? If so, will the hon. and learned Gentleman take steps to see that it is not renewed and bear in mind that there is real danger to coastal defences and to people's houses in that area? The Crown Commissioners have not checked in the past on the amount of pebbles removed or on the place from which they are being removed.
      Mr. MacDermot: The Crown Commissioners are anxious to see that sea defences are not put at risk. They have asked the local authority for its views. They are awaiting them before deciding whether to permit further removals.

      Overseas Expenditure
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made with his plans for reduction of Government spending across the exchanges by £100 million; and whether this reduction will now be achieved during the current financial year.
      Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now give details of the £100 million reduction in Government overseas expenditure for 1966–67 announced by the Prime Minister on 20th July last; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Dickensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been achieved in effecting the reduction of £100 million in Government overseas expenditure in 1966–67, announced on 20th July last.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 18th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 398–400.]
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the Chancellor recall that these cuts were described six months ago as a firm programme? Why are they still completely in the dark? Can he tell us whether he now anticipates that there will be any increase or any reduction in the rate of current Government expenditure across the exchanges in 1966–67 by comparison with 1965–66?
      Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. I am not ready to give an answer to the second part of the question. As to the first part, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that it was proposed to give a progress report on this matter when the White Paper is published in a few weeks' time.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Could the Chancellor confirm the Prime Minister's assurance last July that this £100 million cut in overseas expenditure would consist of new cuts and not be related back to last year's Defence Review and other items announced or envisaged before the review of 20th July?
      Mr. Callaghan: That is a very detailed question. Broadly, these are new cuts. As in the case of some of the difficult negotiations now going on, there is no doubt that the cuts resulting from the discussions which are taking place and which are made public will have a profound effect on the economy of certain countries and must be carried out with care and the minimum of dislocation.
      Mr. Dickens: Does the Chancellor accept the view of Mr. Fred Catherwood that heavy overseas expenditure has been a major cause of the slow economic growth of this country since the war? Will he give the House an assurance that he will work towards a defence budget of not more than £1,750 million at 1964 prices in 1970, as this is in accordance with current Labour Party policy?
      Mr. Callaghan: I cannot answer a question about the 1970 defence programme this afternoon, even if it was my responsibility. As to the first part of the question, quite clearly Government expenditure overseas is very heavy and has been growing. This Government have restrained it and in due course will cut it back, and it must have a hampering effect on growth. I would not attribute the—I will not say "total failure", because that would give the wrong impression—I would not attribute the slow rate of growth of this country purely to that.
      Mr. Barnett: Is the saving intended to include the saving from United States spending on U.S. Forces transferred from France? If it is, as it was originally intended that by 1969–70 the saving of

      1261
      £100 million would have been there anyway, what is the corresponding increase that there will be in defence expenditure?
      Mr. Callaghan: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put that Question down or wait for the progress report which is coming in about three weeks' time.

      PAYMASTER-GENERAL
      Ql. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will now give the Paymaster-General further Departmental responsibilities about which he will answer in the House.
      The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.
      Not at present, Sir.
      Mr. Marten: Would not the First Secretary agree that it is really getting rather unsatisfactory that a Minister should be answerable to Parliament for nothing and that Parliament should not be told anything about what he does? Would he consult with the Prime Minister and perhaps ask him if he might tell us a little more about this intriguing Minister?
      Mr. Stewart: Parliament has been told a great deal about this. I should add that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regrets very much that he is not able to answer the hon. Gentleman personally today, but, if the hon. Gentleman would like to table a further Question on a date which would enable the Prime Minister to reply in person, he would be delighted to do so.

      RHODESIA
      Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister what official correspondence he has had with Mr. Smith; and if he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.
      Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
      My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had no correspondence with Mr. Smith since the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger" and I have nothing to add to the Answer
      1262
      he gave on 19th January to Questions about Rhodesia.—[Vol. 739, c. 648.]
      Mr. Wall: As it is now clear that mandatory sanctions, without the cooperation of South Africa and Portugal, will not bring down the Smith Government in the short-term, anyhow, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the Government's policy with regard to the extension of sanctions to Rhodesia's neighbours and what effect that would have on our economy, for which he is largely responsible?
      Mr. Stewart: I do not accept the first premise of that supplementary question. The remainder of it is therefore hypothetical in the highest degree.
      Mr. Bellenger: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Governor is being used for correspondence or oral conversations between the Prime Minister and Mr. Smith?
      Mr. Stewart: There has been no correspondence with Mr. Smith since the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger", and, indeed, all previous contacts were under the aegis of the Governor. It is possible at any time for a lawful régime in Rhodesia, if there were a return to legality, to get into touch with this Government.
      Mr. Heath: Questions were raised with the First Secretary last week about the activities of the World Health Organisation in Rhodesia. It now appears that that organisation had projects being planned before U.D.I. to deal with malaria control and mother and child care. There was also the question of a medical fellowship at the university. These projects were abandoned at the insistence of the British Government, apparently. Can the First Secretary confirm that that is the case and, if it is, can he not look at the position again? As the British Government are in any case supporting the University of Rhodesia, quite rightly, surely projects of this kind ought to be able to go ahead?
      Mr. Stewart: It is not the case that these projects have been abandoned at the insistence of the British Government. Before the illegal declaration of independence, the World Health Organisation proposed to send a malaria eradication

      1263
      team to Rhodesia. After the illegal declaration of independence, the organisation consulted Her Majesty's Government, who said that the team should proceed, and Parliament was so informed. It was at the end of last year that we learned that the World Health Organisation itself had decided that it could not let the team proceed because it saw difficulties about the negotiation of privileges and immunities for its members. That means that, in general, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that the World Health Organisation should be able to carry out its function, but the fact that there is an unlawful régime in Rhodesia makes it difficult for it to do so. It is there that the responsibility lies.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the First Secretary for making the first point. Can he also confirm that, from the point of view of the British Government, there is no objection to the World Health Organisation going ahead with these projects?
      Mr. Stewart: There is no objection from our point of view. The organisation itself, unfortunately, has found that the existence of an illegal régime makes it very difficult for it to do so.

      VIETNAM
      Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to meet the President of the United States of America to discuss the war in Vietnam.
      Mr. Will Griffithsasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to meet the President of the United States as soon as possible to discuss the developments in the war in Vietnam.
      Mr. Rankinasked the Prime Minister what representations he has made to President Johnson about the bombing of civilians in Hanoi by American military aircraft.
      Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
      We have maintained close contact with the United States Government at all levels and on all aspects of the recent situation in Vietnam. My right hon. Friend does not think a special meeting is necessary at present.
      Mr. Winnick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that recent visitors and correspondents in North Vietnam have reported a completely different state of affairs about how the war started and is progressing than the usual American stories? Would the Government now consider supporting publicly the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations that American bombing should stop as the first essential step to getting peace and negotiations going?
      Mr. Stewart: I would remind my hon. Friend, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made quite clear, that we supported the three points made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations together; that we deplore all the slaughter that is going on in Vietnam, but that it is neither useful nor possible to make a condemnation of one part of this matter alone.
      Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's persistent refusal to take any new initiatives over the bombing in particular increasingly makes the Prime Minister's declaration of dissociation last August look like a grizzly charade? The Governments of New Zealand and Australia have troops committed in Vietnam, whatever I and some of my hon. Friends think about it. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what they think about the escalation of bombing? They may have more influence, because at least they are supporting the Americans with their lives and not with their mouths.
      Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it would be proper for me to answer for the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. I think that the position taken by Her Majesty's Government on the earlier bombing episode was made quite clear. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, there is no need to restate that position. We have repeatedly, on a great many occasions, made attempts to get the fighting stopped, and it will not be possible to get the result that everyone wants to See—an end to the slaughter—unless there is a conference and an agreement all round to stop the fighting.
      Mr. Rankin: How can my right hon. Friend talk about stopping the war when

      1265
      he is supporting the policy of the United States in carrying on that war and in bombing women and children in Hanoi? Would he not rather now support the demand of the universities of Great Britain to withdraw our support from the United States and act as mediator in stopping the war instead?
      Mr. Stewart: I saw the appeal to which my hon. Friend refers. It advances the proposition that, if this country were to criticise the policy of the United States in the way that they wish, it would help us in acting as mediator. But we have to notice that a great many different countries and parties, many of whom have strongly condemned the United States, have tried to act as mediators, and have been as much rebuffed as we have.
      Mr. Hastings: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever attempted to check on the proportion of questions put from his own side critical of the Americans on this issue compared with those critical of Hanoi? Would it not be about 99 to 1 per cent.?
      Mr. Michael Foot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a growing number of Americans are agreeing with the kind of questions put on this side of the House? Will he look again at the claim, made by him today and by the Foreign Secretary a few days ago—that the Government support U Thant's proposals? To many of us, the Government seem to misrepresent them. Will he publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the proposals put by U Thant so that we may see that these demand support for unconditional and unqualified cessation of American bombing?
      Mr. Stewart: There is no doubt about what the proposals are. The point of difference between my hon. Friend and the Government is that the Government take the view that these proposals have to be taken together. We do not share the view that a unilateral condemnation of American action will be helpful or promote peace.
      Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Johnson has said that the participation of the P.L.A. would not be an insuperable obstacle to the holding of a peace conference? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore advise
      1266
      the Foreign Secretary that, in any future peace initiative, he should include the P.L.A. as a necessary participant in peace talks?
      Mr. Stewart: In what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said last week, he showed himself cognisant of this point. I think that it is now generally agreed that, if there were willingness on behalf of Hanoi to go to a conference at all, the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would not present an obstacle.
      Mr. Ogden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any peace settlement in Vietnam would have to have the prior approval of the Chinese Government? Does he think it realistic in present circumstances to press for this in view of the conditions inside China?
      Mr. Stewart: There are obviously a great many difficulties obstructing a settlement in Vietnam, not least the one my hon. Friend has mentioned. But the first step in a settlement must be a start of negotiations or talks of some kind. The offer which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made to facilitate such a conference or, if that seems a possible way to do it, to recall the Geneva Conference, still stands. It is not any unwillingness on the part of the British Government or indeed on the part of the United States Government that prevents talks starting.
      Mr. Michael Hamilton: Are the Government considering giving any assistance to the Australian and New Zealand forces in Vietnam at present?
      Mr. Stewart: This question has been asked and answered many times. It is not the intention of the Government to send troops to Vietnam. It is known that civilian help of certain kinds is being given and this is being continued.

      EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
      Dr. Dunwoodyasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent exchanges with other European leaders about Great Britain's entry into Europe.
      Mr. Bostonasked the Prime Minister if he will now give further

      1267
      details of the series of high-level talks he is having with European Governments about Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community.
      Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
      As regards my right hon. Friend's discussions with the Italian Government, I would refer my hon. Friends to the Answers he gave to Questions on 19th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 643–7.]—As regards the further visits he is making, together with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to other European Heads of Government, I would ask my hon. Friends to await the reports which will be made to the House in due course.
      Dr. Dunwoody: While realising that discussions are at a very delicate and sensitive stage at this moment, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give an idea as to the date on which we can expect a statement along these lines?
      Mr. Stewart: The dates on which the various visits are to be held are known. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will do the best they can to keep the House informed after the visits.
      Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend accept that no doubt all right hon. and hon. Members welcome the cordial reception given to the Prime Minister's speech in Strasbourg yesterday? On a particular passage in that speech, can my right hon. Friend say to what extent these high-level talks are being used as a means of sounding out West European leaders on ways of extending and developing contacts, especially in trade and other ways, with East European countries?
      Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the House will agree with what my hon. Friend said about the Prime Minister's Strasbourg speech. Relations between West and East Europe are, of course, one of the topics that comes into this question but I do not think that I should go further than that at present.

      CIVIL SERVICE (FULTON COMMITTEE)
      Mr. Straussasked the Prime Minister what is his policy regarding the implementation of the proposals for the
      1268
      reform of the Civil Service made to the Fulton Committee by the Executive of the Labour Party.
      Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
      The Government's policy on all these matters will be formed in the light of the Committee's report which my right hon. Friend hopes to receive at about the end of the year.
      Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that evidence submitted by the National Executive of the Labour Party contains a grave accusation against civil servants which is much resented, because the Prime Minister and some of his Cabinet colleagues are members of the National Executive. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to dissociate himself and his colleagues from the offensive suggestion that civil servants often deliberately conceal their activities from Ministers?
      Mr. Stewart: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) is overstating the case, but in fact the Prime Minister made it clear in a television interview recently that he did not share the view that was put forward in that evidence.
      Mr. Hastings: Has the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary read the comments of civil servants about the Leader of the House as reported in the Sunday Telegraph.
      Mr. Stewart: I sometimes think that those who claim to know the views of unnamed civil servants are really the equivalent of the astrology columns one finds in the less pretentious newspapers.

INTEREST RATES (DISCUSSIONS)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BRUCE-GARDYNE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of Finance Ministers at Chequers from 21st January to 22nd January and also on the basis on which invitations were extended, explaining in particular why an invitation was not extended to the official responsible for interest rate

1269
policy in the United States of America the Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Bank.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like now to reply to Question No. 50.
My discussions with the Ministers concerned with financial policy in the United States, France, Germany and Italy showed that there is a general desire to see interest rates in some of the leading centres reduced. Circumstances in the five countries vary considerably and there are also differences in the nature of the responsibilities of the Ministers in this particular matter. However, there was agreement that within these limits we should co-operate in such a way as to achieve our objectives. This was a small and informal meeting of Ministers. Meetings of Central Bank governors are held fairly frequently.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was unaware that he was going to answer this Question at the end of Question Time? Apart from that, is he also aware that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in New York was first informed of this meeting, apparently, in the newspapers, although he is the official in charge of American interest rate policy? Does the Chancellor really think that this is the best way to get the right sort of climate in reducing interest rates internationally.
Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was not informed that I was to answer this Question at the end of Question Time. But I must say that when I was a young Member of the House it was regarded as one's duty to be present at Question Time if one had put down a Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was here."] If he was here, then he has no complaint, has he?
As to the rest of his supplementary question, it is not my obligation to inform the governors of the Central Banks of other countries, and I certainly do not feel that I should do so. Indeed, there would be complaint if I did.
Mr. Shinwell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the course of the discussions with his opposite numbers, the question of an increase in the price of gold was raised and its relation to
1270
international liquidity? Has he considered the possibility that if some people get their own way in relation to an increase in the price of gold it would have a detrimental effect on those who suffer from very low fixed incomes?
Mr. Callaghan: The last sentence of the communiqué said that no other question was dealt with at the meeting. That means no questions other than the question of interest rates, so I do not think the rest of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question arises.
Sir C. Osborne: Is the Chancellor aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish him well in attempting to get low interest rates, especially for industry? But will he bear in mind the other aspect, that in industry today liquidity is improving but production is going down, and that a mere reduction in interest rates will not solve our problems?
Mr. Callaghan: There are a number of aspects of the problem of getting the growth in the economy which is essential, and this is one step to securing that end. But it is not the only step.
Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side welcome any initiative to reduce interest rates, whether informal or official?
Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that that is the view taken generally not only by this country but by the other countries concerned.
Mrs. Thatcher: As there have been many different interpretations of the significance of the talks, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be unwise to expect any dramatic results from a meeting at which the representatives could commit neither their Governments nor the Central Banks? What influence, if any, have these talks had on his own decision about interest rates here?
Mr. Callaghan: I think the hon. Lady would be the most surprised person in this House if I gave an answer to the last part of her question. As to the first part—the Ministers were, of course, in a position to commit their own Governments but, as I made it clear in my Answer and as the communiqué pointed

1271
out, the relationships between Central Banks and Governments in various countries differ. It was for that reason that the communiqué was carefully phrased. As to whether anything dramatic can happen—what I would hope to see would be a steady downward progress, undramatic, from the very high level of interest rates reached last autumn.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Since only six months ago the Chancellor and the Prime Minister were saying that putting up these interest rates to such a high level would solve all our problems, what has happened in the last six months to bring about this change?
Mr. Callaghan: I would be deeply interested if my hon. Friend would send me the quotation that he is referring to.
Mr. Tilney: Would not the Chancellor agree that one of the best ways to reduce interest rates to the Government would be to exclude Government stocks from Capital Gains Tax?
Mr. Callaghan: No. I think that it would have only a marginal effect, if any.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend really saying that a change in the price of gold would have no effect on interest rates?
Mr. Callaghan: I was not aware that that was the question put. The question put was related to Governmen bonds, as I understood it.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he says he hopes to achieve can probably best be achieved through a substantial increase in the formation and supply of capital, by which the whole range of Government policy is substantially affected?
Mr. Callaghan: There are two factors making up the level of interest rates. One is the domestic side of the economy and the other is the possibility of international competition for money. It was with the latter aspect of the matter that we were concerned on Saturday and Sunday and on which there was general agreement about the path we should follow.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out to
1272
the Chancellor, I received no prior notice that this Question would be answered at the end of Question Time, although it so happened that I was present when he answered it. Had I not been present, this Question could not presumably have been asked. How is it that a Minister can answer a Question in these circumstances? What is the position?
Mr. Speaker: The question of whether an hon. Member is informed by the right hon. Gentleman is not a matter of order but a matter of courtesy. On the other point of order—if the right hon. Gentleman had sought to answer the Question at the end of Question Time and the hon. Member had not been here the Question could not have been answered.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Because there might be some implied reflection in what you said about lack of courtesy, may I draw your attention to the fact that we made very rapid progress in Questions today? This was an Oral Question and might well have been reached if the Prime Minister's Questions had been finished. In those circumstances would you regard it as the duty of a Minister to leave his seat when the Prime Minister's Questions are on and go and tell another Member whom he sees walking out of the Chamber that he should stay?
Mr. Speaker: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in what I said I meant no reproof at all. All I was stating was that the Chair can rule on questions of order but that on questions of courtesy it cannot.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer know perfectly well, because of the number of Questions down to the Prime Minister today, that his was hardly likely to be reached? Is it not more than likely, since this is the second week running that he has appeared at the Box alongside the First Secretary, that he has taken the opportunity just to make sure that his place of No. 3 in the Government order is maintained?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Could you clarify what you said, Mr. Speaker, because is it not a fact that if there is a

1273
Question on the Order Paper, whether for Oral or Written Answer, the Minister can always take that Question and answer it?
Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the Clerk that there is some doubt about the Ruling I gave about the hypothetical circumstance in which a Minister decides to answer a Question at the end of Question Time and the hon. Member is not there to put it. I will give a firm Ruling on that tomorrow.
Mr. Ronald Bell: So that we may have this matter clarified, Mr. Speaker, would you bear in mind, when giving consideration to it, the obvious difficulty that the Minister might have answered the Question before he realised that the hon. Member was not present? Would you further consider what the position is if an hon. Member, thinking that his Question has not been reached for Oral Answer, withdraws it by going to the Clerk at 3.30 and perhaps leaves the Chamber? In those circumstances, whatever your Ruling on the first matter, would it be in order for the Minister to answer the Question?
Mr. Speaker: I shall give consideration to every point, including that which the hon. and learned Member raised.
Mr. Callaghan: Would you also bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I did not rise until you called me? I therefore assume that if any information was given to the Table about the Question being withdrawn you would not have called me.
Mr. Younger: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had wished to be certain of answering the Question today, could he not easily have given you notice earlier today that he wished to answer it, whether it was reached or not? Was it not therefore an unnecessary discourtesy to my hon. Friend that he was not given any warning that the Question would he answered in any case?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has merely stated forcibly the point which is before the House and on which I promised to rule a little more formally tomorrow.

MALTA (REDUCTION OF FORCES)
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on my recent visit to Malta in connection with the proposed reductions of our forces there.
It was stated in last year's Defence White Paper (Command 2901) that we proposed to enter into consultations with the Government of Malta, in accordance with Article 6 of the Defence Agreement, for a reduction of British forces there in the next few years. My noble Friend Lord Beswick initiated these consultations in Malta last August when he put forward proposals for reducing our forces to Defence Review levels by the end of 1968. In the light of the strong reactions of the Malta Government and of subsequent representations made in London by the Maltese Prime Minister, Her Majesty's Government concluded that the proposals should be modified in order to reduce their impact on the Maltese economy, principally by deferring the withdrawal of British Army units for two years until 1970.
The revised proposals envisage the withdrawal of Her Majesty's ships based on Malta and the disbandment of a second R.A.F. squadron during the current year, the ending of British responsibility for the Royal Malta Artillery during 1968, and the withdrawal of both British infantry battalions in 1970. At the end of the run-down one R.A.F. squadron would remain and a range of defence facilities would be retained. As a consequence of these reductions, British defence expenditure in Malta would by 1970 fall by about a half from its present level of £.12½ million a year. The number of British Servicemen would be reduced from the present level of about 4,300 by about two-thirds by the end of 1970.
I visited Malta from 12th to 17th January to continue our consultations and to present these revised proposals to the Malta Government. I had a series of meetings with the Prime Minister and his advisers and also had discussions with leaders and representatives of many sections of Maltese opinion. I explained that the reduction of our forces in Malta was part of a worldwide redeployment

1275
of our defence effort, the object of which was to secure the most efficient use of the resources available to us. It would make a significant contribution to worldwide economies which we are determined to make, without in our view affecting our ability—or our determination—to fulfil our obligation under the Defence Agreement for the defence of Malta itself.
We recognised that the run-down of our forces would create serious problems for Malta, particularly during the early years. It was in order to lessen the impact on the Malta economy and in response to representations made by the Malta Government that we were now proposing to phase the run-down over four years instead of two. These revisions meant, for example, that in 1969–70 the level of employment would be more than 2,000 higher and service expenditure in Malta more than £3 million higher than under our previous proposals. These changes, which were not justified on purely defence grounds, represented a considerable sacrifice of savings in defence expenditure which we could otherwise have achieved. I also referred to the exceptionally high level of aid, running at about £18 per head a year which, despite cuts elsewhere, we were continuing to provide for Malta. I offered our co-operation in measures to alleviate the consequences of our run-down.
The Government of Malta stressed the serious economic difficulties and heavy unemployment which they contended even our revised proposals would cause for Malta, particularly during the first two years. They also maintained that with our revised force levels we should be unable to honour effectively our obligations to assist in the defence of Malta under the Defence Agreement. They claimed that we were in breach of the Agreement in failing to consult them properly on these matters in advance. Many other expressions of disquiet at the economic effects of the run-down were made to me.
A summary of the views of each side is contained in the joint communiqué, copies of which I have placed in the Library. I undertook to report the reactions of the Malta Government to Her Majesty's Government but discouraged expectations of further changes in our proposals. After considering my report, Her Majesty's Government have con-
1276
firmed, with regret, that they cannot offer any further changes in their proposals for the run-down and must now proceed to put these into effect. I have so informed Dr. Borg Olivier in a personal message.
While Her Majesty's Government do not deny that even the revised proposals will cause difficulties for the Maltese economy, we believe that these will be only temporary. In the longer run, Malta's economic prospects are good; industry and tourism are expanding and the dockyard is a valuable asset. I hope that our aid can help Malta to surmount these short-term problems and lay the foundations for future prosperity in the island.
I cannot conclude without a warm personal tribute to the Maltese Prime Minister and his colleagues who received me with unfailing courtesy despite the difficult mission we had come to perform. One cannot visit Malta without being conscious of the great good will which exists there for Britain and I have every hope that this good will, which is born of over 150 years of close association in peace and war, will survive the present difficulties.
Mr. Maudling: These are serious problems both for our defence expenditure and our obligations to the people of Malta. The Opposition would wish to have an opportunity to discuss them in greater depth than can be done in response to a statement after Questions.
In the meantime, may I ask three questions? First, does not this setback to the economy of Malta come at a critical time in the expansion of Malta's industry and tourism? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the revised proposals providing more employment than the original proposals, but can he tell us what is the estimate of what level of unemployment will be reached in Malta at its peak under the revised proposals? Thirdly, can he say what savings these proposals will bring, first, in the total defence budget of the United Kingdom and, secondly, in the balance of payments of the sterling area as a whole?
Mr. Bowden: I accept that this is a serious setback to the Maltese economy, but we should not be unduly pessimistic about it because, as I have said in my statement, Malta is doing extremely well with tourism and extremely well in the construction industry—hotels are going

1277
up rapidly—and there is some industrial development. One ought not to assume that because there will be, as there is bound to be, increased unemployment as a result of this rundown, which will be higher during the first two years, that everyone who is displaced will in fact be out of work for a very long period, because many of them will be picked up in the now expanding tourist industry. It will interest the House to know, for instance, that the Maltese have been finding about 1,500 additional jobs a year over the last two years.
As for the unemployment figures; the present position is that the British Services employ about 2,500 locally enlisted Maltese Service men, 400 of whom are in Germany with the R.M.A., and about 7,800 civilians. By the end of the rundown, those figures will be 750 locally enlisted Service men and 3,000 civilians, which is a reduction of about 6,500 at the end of the rundown.
As I have said in my statement, the saving will be from an expenditure of about £12,500,000 at the moment to rather less than half of that at the end of the four-year period. What has to be borne in mind is that while the saving is not as great as it would have been if it had been made outside the sterling area, nevertheless there is a saving in keeping a battalion in this country of about £1 million compared with keeping the same battalion in Malta.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my second question. Would he be kind enough to do so, if he can? What do the Government calculate will be the level of unemployment in Malta at the peak as a result of these measures?
Mr. Bowden: I tried to indicate that it is impossible to say. If everyone who is displaced is out of work, then, of course, the level of unemployment in Malta will be the current level plus 6,500.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while there will be a welcome for the fact that we are reducing what many regard as nineteenth century military commitments, on political and economic grounds it would have been preferable if these had been concentrated in the Far East and not in the European theatre? Secondly, will not the unemploy-
1278
ment figure in Malta as a result be about 20 per cent.? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Malta has shown more loyalty and steadfastness to this country in time of war and is it not, therefore, extraordinary that no statement has been made about the amount of aid which will be given by the Ministry of Overseas Development to compensate for what will be a shattering blow to the economy of this very loyal member of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Bowden: I am dealing only with Malta in the present statement, but there will be defence savings in the Far East and many other theatres throughout the world where we have troops. The reply to what the hon. Gentleman said about the percentage of unemployment is that if everyone displaced became unemployed, unemployment, we understand, might reach about 13 per cent. I forget the hon. Gentleman's third question.
Mr. Thorpe: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the overseas development aid which his right hon. Friend is prepared to give to compensate for the measures now being taken?
Mr. Bowden: The Financial Agreement under the 1964 Defence Agreement will be continued. That Agreement has seven years still to run. Overseas aid for Malta will run at approximately £5 million a year under that Agreement. We are prepared to consider with the Maltese Government during the time that the rundown is taking place what other ways we can help, with technical assistance and anything we can do to assist during this period.
Mr. Driberg: While all of us, on this side of the House anyway, welcome any defence cuts—the most drastic cuts possible in defence costs—is my right hon. Friend none the less aware that we realise that there is a dilemma here, since nobody wants to create massive unemployment in a small island to which we owe a great deal? Can he, therefore, say whether, apart from alternative employment in new industries and tourism, the Maltese Government have developed any adequate social security services yet to provide for the unemployed? Can he also consider modifying a little further the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act?
Mr. Bowden: There will, of course, be redundancy payments, the rates of which will be dependent on whether the civil servant concerned is established or non-established. That is provided under legislation already in existence. There will be redundancy payments on discharge from the Royal Malta Artillery. The figures for emigration from Malta have been falling. They were averaging about 7,500 a year over a number of years, but last year they were 4,500, which is a very good augury and a happy indication that Malta is making progress. The quota of vouchers to entitle Maltese to come to this country is, as far as I recollect, about 1,000 a year, and the quota has not been fully taken up.
Sir H. Harrison: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that all infantry troops are to be withdrawn over four years? Is not that unwise? Infantry troops can do jobs which technical troops cannot do. I would have thought that it would have been better to leave an infantry battalion where it was popular and wanted rather than to bring the men back to this country where, as I understand it, the Army is having to buy houses at very high cost because of the lack of married quarters here.
Mr. Bowden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct. It is the intention to withdraw two infantry battalions at the end of the four years and not before. The original proposal was to withdraw them at the end of two years. As I have said, there is a distinct saving if the infantry battalions are brought back to this country, although it is not as high as it would have been if they had been in a non-sterling area. It is, nevertheless, considerable.
Mr. Bellenger: In view of the unique dockyard facilities at Malta and the U.S.A.'s naval responsibilities in the Mediterranean, has there been any suggestion of Malta giving repair and supply facilities to any units of the U.S.A. fleet?
Mr. Bowden: I could not answer that question without notice, but I can tell my right hon. Friend that, while not completely "out of the red", Malta dockyard is now doing extremely well under its present management. It is doing an excellent job, and I would regard it as one of Malta's best assets. I hope that the problem about it can be settled quickly.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what order of capital cost was allowed by the Government on taking this decision to rebuild in Britain barracks and married quarters to replace the very modern and recently constructed barracks and married quarters in Malta in which troops are now accommodated? Secondly, what alternative areas do the Government have in mind for the anti-submarine and air-sea warfare training in clear weather which now takes place in Malta?
Mr. Bowden: It will be necessary to provide some additional barrack accommodation in this country as a result of bringing troops home, not only from Malta but from elsewhere. As I have already said twice, there will be a saving. I should like notice of the second question, which is a purely military question, unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman would prefer to address it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that both in written form and in interview I put forward some detailed proposals for educational ways in which facilities in Malta could be used both to do with training colleges and with school ships? Was any consideration given to them?
Mr. Bowden: Both these matters are under consideration. Last week I had the opportunity of seeing one of the school ships, which was under repair in the Malta dockyard. The question of teacher-training in Malta is being investigated.
Sir W. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that when he went to Malta and talked with the Prime Minister without giving him more notice than, I believe, 24 hours, although there was an arrangement for consultations between the two Governments, he did not discuss the future of quite the most important thing in Malta—the dockyard? Why has not he answered my Question, which was, after all, put down for today, which asks what is being done about the dockyard, and the possibilities for the future there? There is an immense possibility of development in Malta and Her Majesty's Government and the Bailey Company seem to be quite incapable, after four years, of coming to an agreement.
Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. In fact, I discussed the Malta dockyard with the Prime Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition and with the trade unions when I was in Malta. In my view, they were all of the same opinion as I am, that the quicker there is a settlement of this problem the better it will be for Malta, because, as I have said, this is the one asset which could do a great deal for that country.
Mr. Mayhew: How far are the Government cutting commitments and how far are they simply cutting resources? Would my right hon. Friend explain what will be the defence rôle for the resources which remain? Will they, for example, have responsibilities under the Anglo-Libyan Treaty and under N.A.T.O. as well as for the defence of Malta?
Mr. Bowden: Concerning the Malta side—and that is what I made the statement about—we are quite happy and confident that our commitment under the 1964 Defence Agreement will be fully met by the residual forces we are leaving there and by the changed method and changed mobility of troops and aircraft which may be necessary to get there in case of need. At present, as far as one can see any foreseeable threat, we are well in a position and determined to carry out the defence side of the 1964 Defence Agreement which can be done without these additional forces. I should perhaps remind the House that after the rundown at the end of four years there will still be about 1,400 British Service men in Malta.
Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us on this side of the House think it somewhat ironical that 25 years after giving Malta the George Cross we are stabbing its economy in the back in this way? Would he give consideration to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles)? Is there not something rather stupid about taking troops from good barracks and bring them back to England where the barracks are bad and increasing the housing shortage? Should not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matte- again? Does not he consider tourism to be necessary in Malta and would not a steady economy there help tourism?
Mr. Bowden: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to think that on only one side of the House was there deep feeling and real affection for the people of Malta. There certainly is on this side of the House, and I share it. But wherever it is necessary to make defence cuts and savings, which in the aggregate will amount to a considerable sum, there is bound to be some disruption of the economy. We hope that the steps which we have suggested will help—that is, phasing this over a longer period, the advice which we think we can give, the setting up of a steering committee, the additional work which can be provided if the dockyard goes ahead, as it is doing. Tourism is booming. This is a gem in the Mediterranean to which people are going in many thousands for their holidays, which I hope they will continue to do. We have all these things in mind. We have no desire, and I am sure that no one in the House has any desire, to damage the Maltese economy more than is absolutely necessary.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Malta is one of the few remaining independent Powers which welcomes the presence of British troops? With about 50,000 British troops in the Far East, does it make sense to "knock" the economy of this small island, which has defended us, when the return of these troops to this country could be phased over a longer period to alleviate our problems instead of buying thousands of houses when there is a desperate housing shortage in Britain? Secondly, what will be done about the Royal Malta Artillery? These officers and men have had a raw deal at the hands of successive British Governments both in pensions and pay.
Mr. Bowden: I have answered the first question on barrack accommodation. On the second question, we hope that there will be facilities for those members of the Royal Malta Artillery who wish to do so to join British forces where there are vacancies. Others may prefer to accept their payments and gratuities and be demobilised. What I am sure it would be a mistake for us to do would be to endeavour to keep the R.M.A. in existence simply for the sake of keeping it in existence.
Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House

1283
note that we shall want to go into this matter in greater detail, particularly concerning the timing and phasing of this operation so that any difficulties for the economy of Malta can be kept to a minimum? We shall also want details of the savings which the Commonwealth Secretary says will take place so that we can assure ourselves that these are not just paper savings but genuine savings on the whole defence budget.
Mr. Bowden: I recognise that the House may want an opportunity to discuss this matter, having given a little more time to considering the figures which I have presented to it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt, through the usual channels, consider how this can be done.
Mr. Wingfield Digby: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Great Britain has a special responsibility to the 6,500 Maltese whom he is to sack and that the ordinary redundancy payments will be quite inadequate as many of these people have given a lifetime of service to the British Services?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot add to what I have said. The question of redundancy payments is under discussion and will be discussed with the Maltese Government. The rate of redundancy payments will depend on years of service, which is usual.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must move on.
Sir W. Teeling: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? As far as I can remember, over the last twenty years, if a Member tables a Question—in fact, there were two in this case, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and one by myself—no Minister has ever made a statement on it. My Question has not been answered at all.
Mr. Fisher: Nor has mine. I was not allowed to put my Question.
Mr. Bowden: I could have made a statement at the end of Questions in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question, but I thought that, because of the practice of the House, which the hon. Gentleman probably understands, namely, that the Opposition spokesmen are not given a copy of the statement in reply to a Question, it would be very much better to make a statement and to give the Opposition a copy of it.
Sir W. Teeling: I should like to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has indicated dissatisfaction with the statement as an answer and wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (No. 2)
4.9 p.m.
Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a sentence of 30 years' imprisonment for the murder of police or prison officers.
Hon. Members will be relieved to know that I do not seek to raise in any shape or form the controversy which we have had in the House about capital punishment. Whether we like it or not, and many of us do not, we must face the situation as it is.
Much time has been given in this House to discussing the future and the welfare of those who are found guilty of committing murder. I think the time has now come to consider the possible victims and what steps we can take to protect them. I believe that throughout the country there is widespread anxiety and national concern at crimes of extreme violence which break out from time to time.
I do not know whether the House knows what the present position is, but, generally speaking, it is this, that a prisoner, provided he behaves himself, is entitled to one-third remission of his sentence. In the past, until very recently, any man who was reprieved from the death sentence, who had committed murder, as a general rule, I think I am right in saying, usually served a sentence of between nine and 11 years. That has become an accepted fact, unfortunately, within the criminal community, and is recognised as such. Now today the position is this, that if that person becomes involved in the first degree in a case involving—shall we say?—armed robbery of £50,000 or £70,000, he can be pretty well certain he will receive a sentence within the region of 15 years. Take one-third remission from that, and it means he serves 10. However, if he decides, when he is cornered, to fight his way out in an utterly ruthless fashion, regardless of the consequences, and somebody, very often a police officer, dies as a result, a life sentence will then be imposed on him, and in his mind, having regard to the practice in the past, he will serve nine or 10 years, which will be precisely the same as if he gives himself up when he is cornered.
That is a situation which, I hope, has been altered since by the Home Secretary,
1286
but it is certainly not clear in the mind of the public, and it is certainly not clear in the mind of the criminal community. There was a time, when the death sentence was in force, when the old, accomplished criminal would never go out on a robbery if guns were going to be taken. Today, one comes across cases where one finds exactly the reverse: they will not go out unless there are going to be guns there, in order that they can make good their escape. Equally, I think the House will agree there is little to deter prisoners who are serving a life sentence from committing violence against prison warders in the course of making their escape, regardless of the effects of that violence.
I do not believe that murder figures mean very much. I shall tell the House why. Frequently, murder is reduced by a jury to manslaughter; frequently, murder is reduced in the courts by the fact of a plea of diminished responsibility under the recent Act being accepted, and that becomes manslaughter; and frequently, murder is reduced, as a prison officer at Brixton told me, by the use of modern drugs. He told me that the number of people whom, in the last 10 years, he had saved from death as a result of modern drugs which are available, is quite enormous. If those people had died, instead of the defendants being charged with grievous bodily harm, they would have been charged with murder. I do not believe that figures presented in statistical form mean very much.
We all know that violence is on the increase. We all know that people go out on these bank raids and wage snatches armed with sawn-off shotguns regardless of the consequences because they honestly believe that if they kill somebody a life sentence will mean in practice only 9, 10 or 11 years because of what has happened in the past. I would be the first to agree that a 30-year statutory sentence is a savage sentence indeed, and I think provision should be made that if the learned judge of assize who tries the case is able to find special reasons in law for reducing it, then of course the Bill would enable him to do so, but we are dealing with hard, cruel, ruthless men; people who go out, quite cold-bloodedly, armed, and will shoot a police officer down, an unarmed man, before he even raises a finger against them, and to meet that

1287
situation we must have a deterrent which is both hard and practical.
The few minutes available to me this afternoon are not sufficient in any way to discuss this complicated subject in its entirety, and I do hope, for this reason, and having regard to the tremendous responsibility which this House owes to the police for the splendid work they are doing, and the loyalty and courage which they are showing in devotion to their duty, the House will allow this Bill to be presented.
Mr. R. T. Paget rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member rises to oppose the Motion?
Mr. Paget: Yes. In my submission the Bill is wholly misconceived. There was an anomaly which provided that the Home Secretary should have power to release on licence where there was a sentence of life imprisonment or on the same terms where there was an imprisonment for a fixed sum. That anomaly is being removed by Clause 36 of the Criminal Justice Bill and so we shall
have got rid of that anomaly. The Home Secretary's powers to release on licence in the case of a fixed term sentence will be precisely the same as those in the case of a life sentence.
So what the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill would do would be to provide that the sentence in the case of the killing of a police officer on duty should be a lesser sentence than in the case of any other murder. In the case of a policeman being killed, then the accused would be a free man in 30 years. In the case of any other murder, he would never be a free man but could at any time be recalled from his licence. I did not gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that this was an end which he had in mind, or that he intended to say that killing policemen was a lesser offence than killing anybody else. This is in fact, the effect of the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 185.

Division No. 246.]

AYES

[4.19 p.m.

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Drayson, G. B.

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Awdry, Daniel

Eden, Sir John

Kitson, Timothy

Baker, W. H. K.

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Batsford, Brian

Eyre, Reginald

Lambton, Viscount

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Farr, John

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Bell, Ronald

Fisher, Nigel

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

Forrest, George

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Berry, Hon. Anthony

Fortescue, Tim

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Biffen, John

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Biggs-Davison, John

Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

Longden, Gilbert

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Black, Sir Cyril

Glover, Sir Douglas

Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

Blaker, Peter

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Body, Richard

Goodhart, Philip

Maginnis, John E.

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gower, Raymond

Marten, Neil

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Grant-Ferris, R.

Mawby, Ray

Braine, Bernard

Gresham Cooke, R.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Grieve, Percy

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Gurden, Harold

Miscampbell, Norman

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Monro, Hector

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Burden, F. A.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Campbell, Gordon

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Murton, Oscar

Cary, Sir Robert

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Channon, H. P. G.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hastings, Stephen

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Clark, Henry

Hawkins, Paul

Nott, John

Clegg, Walter

Hill, J. E. B.

Onslow, Cranley

Costain, A. P.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Crawley, Aidan

Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Crouch, David

Hordern, Peter

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Crowder, F. P.

Hunt, John

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Percival, Ian

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Peyton, John

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Pink, R. Bonner

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Ward, Dame Irene

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

Wills, Sir George (Bridgwater)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ridsdale Julian

Teeling, Sir William

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Russell, Sir Roland

Temple, John M.

Woodnutt, Mark

Scott, Nicholas

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Worsley, Marcus

Sharples, Richard

Tilney, John

Wylie, N. R.

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Younger, Hn. George

Sinclair, Sir George

Vickers, Dame Joan

Smith, John

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stainton, Keith

Wall, Patrick

Mr. Dance and Mr. Currie.

NOES

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Ginsburg, David

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Allen, Scholefield

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Moyle Roland

Anderson, Donald

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Murray, Albert

Archer, Peter

Gregory, Arnold

Oakes, Gordon

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

O'Malley, Brian

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Oram, Albert E.

Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Orme, Stanley

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Oswald, Thomas

Barnett, Joel

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Bence, Cyril

Hattersley, Roy

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Hazell, Bert

Paget, R. T.

Bessell, Peter

Hilton, W. S.

Palmer, Arthur

Bidwell, Sydney

Hooley, Frank

Park, Trevor

Booth, Albert

Hooson, Emlyn

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Hoy, James

Pavitt, Laurence

Boyden, James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Bradley, Tom

Hunter, Adam

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Brooks, Edwin

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Probert, Arthur

Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Randall, Harry

Buchan, Norman

Janner, Sir Barnett

Rankin, John

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)

Redhead, Edward

Carmichael, Neil

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Reynolds, G. W.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Chapman, Donald

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Richard, Ivor

Coleman, Donald

Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)

Conlan, Bernard

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Judd, Frank

Rose, Paul

Crawshaw, Richard

Kenyon, Clifford

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

Dalyell, Tam

Ledger, Ron

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Ryan, John

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

Lomas, Kenneth

Sheldon, Robert

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Loughlin, Charles

Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

Delargy, Hugh

Luard, Evan

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Lubbock, Eric

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Driberg, Tom

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Snow, Julian

Dunn, James A.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

MacColl, James

Storehouse, John

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Macdonald, A. H.

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

Eadie, Alex

Mackie, John

Swingler, Stephen

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mackintosh, John P.

Taverne, Dick

Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Maclennan, Robert

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Ellis, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)

Thorpe, Jeremy

English, Michael

McNamara. J. Kevin

Urwin, T. W.

Ennals, David

MacPherson, Malcolm

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Ensor, David

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Wallace, George

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Fernyhough, E.

Mapp, Charles

Weitzman, David

Finch, Harold

Marquand, David

White, Mrs. Eirene

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Mason, Roy

Wilkins, W. A.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mayhew, Christopher

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Foley, Maurice

Mendelson, J. J.

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Mikardo, Ian

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Millan, Bruce

Winnick, David

Forrester, John

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Fowler, Gerry

Molloy, William

Woof, Robert

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Moonman, Eric

Freeson, Reginald

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Garrett, W. E.

Mr. Ogden and Mr. Victor Yates.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  As amended (in the standing Committee), further considered.
  IRON AND STEEL BILL

    Clause 27.—(CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS, ETC.)
    4.28 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move Amendment No. 94, in page 25, line 32, at the end to insert:
    '() The Minister shall not make regulations under the said section 40 of the said section 41 except after consultation with the Corporation and such organisations as appear to him to be representative of persons concerned'.
    This is a simple Amendment which would require the Minister to consult the Corporation and the trade unions before making pensions regulations under Section 40 of the 1949 Act, as revived, or regulations under Section 41 for the payment of compensation to employees of the Board or a publicly-owned company who suffer loss as a result of nationalisation, the dissolution of the Board or the reorganisation of the industry in accordance with a report submitted by the Corporation under Clause 4 and under directions given by the Minister under Clause 5. It follows an Amendment which was pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) in Committee. In speaking on that Amendment, the Minister said that he would consider taking the matter further on Report, and this Amendment is in pursuit of that undertaking.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 28.—(RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF IRON AND STEEL ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 144, in page 25, line 46, to leave out from 'name' to 'and' in line 2 on page 26 and to insert:
    'within two months after vesting date'
    This Clause re-establishes the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal which had been set up under the 1949 Act and whose functions came to an end. Those
    1292
    functions are to be revived under the Bill and under the provisions of the 1949 Act which are revived by Schedules 3 and 4. The Arbitration Tribunal will have a number of very important functions, all, I think, of a transitional nature.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Clause provides that the tribunal must be re-established as the Iron and Steel Arbitration Tribunal, and it shall be re-established—I come now to the words to be deleted by the Amendment—
    "on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order appoint for the purposes of this section."
    As the Bill stands, therefore, the Government have a complete discretion as to how long should elapse between vesting date and the establishment of the tribunal. This is wholly wrong. The matters falling to be decided by the Arbitration Tribunal are fairly complex but they are matters which those concerned will wish to have settled as swiftly as possible.
    The most important matter is the determination of compensation. It is the intention that Government stock in satisfaction of the compensation should be issued on vesting date, and, if there is any delay, there will be payment of interim interest. Because it is of the utmost importance that the compensation stock should be issued exactly when the Government wish to issue it, or as nearly as possible then, any question of dispute about it should be settled as rapidly as possible. The provision that, if such dispute cannot be settled between the stockholders' representatives and the Minister, the question has to go to the Arbitration Tribunal requires that the Arbitration Tribunal should be in existence as soon as possible after vesting date.
    The Tribunal could well be re-established before vesting date, as soon as the Bill is passed. But we have proposed to limit the discretionary period within which the tribunal must be established to two months after vesting day. Disputes will hardly have got under way until then or, at least, they will not have gone much further than being ready for hearing, and the tribunal should then be in existence.
    The Government are anxious to press the Bill forward. The Minister said yesterday—we took it with a handful of salt—that the Government have always

    1293
    felt that the Bill should be pressed for-ward with as much haste as possible. We are concerned to see that, as soon as they have it on the Statute Book and the various time tables under the Bill start rolling, there does not thereupon enter into the conduct of affairs a dilatoriness which would be wholly regrettable. As the Bill stands, the Lord Chancellor's discretion, is wholly at large and there is no time limit whatever.
    I have mentioned compensation. There are other matters which may be of more relevance to firms which are not being taken over. There are various provisions in the Bill, which were described in Committee as common form provisions in nationalisation Acts, for giving the Corporation power, as it were, to claw back property which has been unreasonably disposed of by one of the companies being taken over during the period between 4th November, 1964, the date when the then First Secretary of State made his announcement immediately after the election, and vesting date. If companies have unreasonably disposed of properties or made imprudent transactions, there are provisions whereby the Corporation can claw the property back, it can nullify transactions, it can surrender leases, and so forth.
    There are many such provisions in the Bill, and all disputes on them must be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal. These are matters which will affect people who may not otherwise be concerned with the nationalisation of the steel industry, people who may have bought property in good faith but who find nevertheless that it has to be returned to the Corporation under one of those provisions. It is most important that these matters should be determined as swiftly as possible, and for this reason, too, it is essential that the Arbitration Tribunal be set up within a finite time.
    I need not enlarge on the case. It is a matter of administration after the Bill has become law. We want no dilatoriness to slip in at that stage in the Government's handling of the matter. Miserable and hateful as the whole Bill is, we think it right nevertheless that the machinery set up under it should work as efficiently and as expeditiously as
    Mr. Freeson: If I speak briefly on this matter, it is not out of disrespect for the points made by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin). Except for his concluding remarks, there is no essential point of difference between the two sides of the House on this question. It is the Government's view that the Bill as it stands would provide for better expedition than the Amendment, which would require the re-establishment of the Arbitration Tribunal within two months of vesting date rather than on a specific date appointed by order of the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of the Clause.
    For this reason and not for any of the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we find the Amendment not acceptable. We would prefer to allow the Clause to stand as it is to allow such an order specifying a date to be issued.
    I give the assurance that, to a very large degree, the Amendment is pushing at an open door. It is possible—it is not for me to say at this stage—that the re-establishment of the tribunal could take place before vesting day. The Amendment would preclude this, and I hope, therefore, that it will not be pressed.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: If I may speak again, with leave of the House, I do not follow the hon. Gentleman when he says that our Amendment would preclude earlier establishment of the tribunal. All we say is that it should not be later than two months after vesting day. However, the hon. Gentleman has said that it is, or it could well be, the Government's intention to establish the tribunal even before vesting day. If he will go a little further and say that he will draw this matter to his right hon. Friend's attention so that an undertaking might be given in another place, after the matter has been looked at again to see whether it is possible to meet the point, I think that we need waste no more time on it.
    Mr. Freeson: I give that undertaking.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 32.—(EXEMPTION OF THE CORPORATION AND PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES FROM BUILDING CONTROL ACT 1966.)
    Mr. John Peyton: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 27, to leave out lines 35 to 39.
    I can move this Amendment with a one-word speech.
    Why?
    Mr. Freeson: In contrast to my comments on the last Amendment, I think that I must speak at somewhat greater length in response to the hon. Gentleman's very short question.
    As I see it, the effect of the Amendment would be to delete this Clause, which was inserted as a result of a Government Amendment in Committee, and exempts the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies from the system of control introduced by the Building Control Act, 1966. I could speak at some length on this, but the essential point here is that, whereas prior to the Building Control Act, 1966, there were no general or specific controls—at least for quite a number of years—on the building industry, or on developers generally, there have been in the nationalised industries, or within the nationalised industries coming under the Minister, and indeed in certain other respects so far as Government activities are concerned, very tight controls over investments which involve building activities. It is this kind of control which is being continued and would have been continued even if there had been no Building Control Act applicable generally in the economy.
    That, briefly, is the answer. It is unnecessary to require this double control when we already have the control within the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Peyton: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that answer, which, oddly enough, is rather on the lines that I had expected. I think that appearances matter. When the Government introduce a great panoply of controls such as we know are dear to the hearts of the Socialist party, I look with a certain amount of jeolousy and suspicion at the suggestion that nationalised industries, or for that matter anyone whom the
    1296
    Government may particularly favour, should be exempted from those controls. This is not because I have a vindictive attitude to the nationalised industries, or that I wish to get in a dig at them at every possible opportunity; nothing of the kind. It is merely that when a statute like this is established as the law of the land it is most undesirable, from every point of view, that any particular organisation or organisations should be excluded from the operation of that Statute.
    I think that ours is a justifiable complaint, and I am rather sorry that my exceedingly brief, but nevertheless relevant, speech has not elicited a more convincing explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. The mere fact that there is a measure of control by the Government over the investments of the nationalised industries is not itself adequate. For financial reasons there is ample control over private enterprise building and investment from their own boardrooms and managements. It is quite another matter to exclude the nationalised industries from a statute which this House has solemnly, —in this case not in its wisdom; I think rather foolishly—decided to put on the Statute Book.
    Though it be the one I expected, I find the hon. Gentleman's explanation very unsatisfactory indeed. The hon. Gentleman is not personally to blame; it is the Government's responsibility.
    Sir Gerald Nabarro: Effectively, what the Government are saying is that the nationalised steel industry may contract out of the form of building control which is to be applied to the private enterprise steel companies, notwithstanding the fact that the Government sector, the National Steel Corporation, will directly be in competition with those private steel manufacturing firms.
    Why should there be one set of rules, Ministerially inspired, for the nationalised sector, and another set of rules, perhaps judged by different standards—because it will be a different body exercising the controls, it will not be the Minister of Power exercising them—for the private sector of the industry? The Corporation should have to apply through the machinery which applies in respect of building controls for the whole of private industry.

    1297
    We are creating a situation whereby the Minister of Power will judge the efficacy or otherwise of an application for building in excess of a specified sum for the investment in the nationalised sector under the Ministry of Power, the electricity industry, the degree of control operated is very scant indeed.
    4.45 p.m.
    My second point is that the Ministry of Power has loosely controlled the capital investment programmes of the nationalised coal, gas, and electricity industries for the past 20 years, but it has not done so very well, and it does not do it in detail. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any doubt about that, he might read, if he has not already done so, the publications on nationalised industries by former civil servants who worked in the Ministry for many years. In those publications it is brought out with the greatest authority that in the case of the biggest investment in the nationalised sector under the Ministry of Power, the electricity industry, the degree of control operated is very scant indeed. This is my second point.
    My third point, and I think the most valid of all, is that we have said all the way through the Bill, with a good deal of support from the Treasury Bench, that the intention is that the steel industry shall be operated as a commercial enterprise. If it is operated as a commercial enterprise, it should submit to commercial standards, and if commercial standards are to be applied on a profit-earning basis in the private sector of the steel industry, which admittedly is no more than 7 or 8 per cent., then the same standards should be operated in the nationalised sector of the industry, which is of the order of 93 per cent.
    Is the Ministry of Power in a position to judge by commercial standards what is a desirable investment in building? The answer is that of course it is not. Civil servants never are.
    Mr. Eric Lubbock: It has not the resources.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he says, it has not the resources to do it, nor have civil servants the necessary training to do it. This is what is wrong with bureaucracy.
    1298
    They follow a set of rules in a rule book, and they advise the Minister accordingly, all within a generic and overall total sum of money which is impressed on them by the Treasury.
    The commercial viability of an enterprise cannot effectively be judged by the bureaucracy, nor have politicians the wherewithal to judge it. Has the Minister of Power—or indeed his Parliamentary Secretary, or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology—the commercial acumen, the foresight, the prescience, necessary to judge whether a particular building enterprise, possibly involving millions of £s, is a desirable venture?
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Power has not yet given approval to the capital investment programme of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is normally approved by the end of the year? Does this not show that the Ministry is falling behind in its work, without having this additional burden imposed on it?
    Sir G. Nabarro: That is so. The capital investment programmes of the nationalised industries were the principal cause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to this House on 2nd May last and asking for an overall surplus in the mammoth sum of £1,007 million to cover below-the-line expenditure, most largely the below-the-line expenditure of the nationalised industries. There is enormous extravagance today in the nationalised industry to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred, electricity generation, where I believe the Minister has called for sums of money three or four times greater than he actually needs. I can only raise this point in passing. It would be out of order to explore it in depth.
    I give it as an example because, in my judgment, it demonstrates that the Ministry of Power does not have the facilities, nor its civil servants the training, to adjudge whether projects are commercially viable and enterprising and are likely to earn profits in the future. Having regard to all these circumstances, is it right that the Corporation should contract out—that is what it is—of the penetrating standards of examination which are applicable to the private sector of the steel industry?

    1299
    I have no confidence whatever in the analytical capacity of the Minister in financial matters and my hon. Friends should at this juncture say, as a matter of principle, that Parliament requires closer scrutiny than a single, global, generic and empirical annual figure for the capital of the steel industry approved by the Minister, including building consents, remembering that once they have been approved they will be unchallengeable by this House.
    On a similar point last night, when my hon. Friends were pleading for the affirmative procedure to be adopted, the Minister said, "We all know that the Minister can be challenged in the House of Commons; the Opposition can put down a Motion of censure". We do not want to do that on matters of capital expenditure authorised by the Minister for individual industries. That would make a mockery of the highest form of Parliamentary attack. We want Parliamentary instruments and methods of scrutinising what the Minister is authorising, but we will not have them according to the Bill as drafted.
    I hope that the Minister will not reply by simply saying "No" but will endeavour conscientiously to meet the valid arguments that have been adduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I evolved a better system of controlling the expenditure of the nationalised industries, and while it took us 10 years, from 1951 to 1961, to make a small dent in this procedure, we are far from having enough annual Parliamentary control over matters of this sort.
    I hope that my hon. Friends will not laugh this off as a minor Amendment simply because my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was so magnanimous in moving it; simply by using the word "Why". I have in the past used many thousands of words to justify the principle of the Amendment. Unless the Minister is more forthcoming, I hope that my hon. Friends will, to ensure the control of investment on a proper Parliamentary basis, vote on this issue.
    Mr. George Forrest: Considering that, in addition to the right hon. Gentleman, there are five hon. Members on the benches opposite, I congratulate
    1300
    the Minister on the amount of support he has managed to muster on this occasion. At no previous time during this discussion has he had so much support.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman making a maiden speech?
    Mr. Forrest: I am not. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on anything I have to say he should rise to his feet and say it Having listened to the whole of the discussion, I cannot understand why, since hon. Gentlemen opposite are so in favour of nationalisation, they do not bother to listen to what is being said on the subject.
    Sir G. Nabarro: They are in the Tea Room.
    Mr. John Rankin: With the Tories.
    Mr. Forrest: I came to the House last night armed with notes for a couple of speeches in favour of an Amendment which stood in the name of a good Scottish hon. Member. On that occasion hon. Gentlemen opposite stated that although they had a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend's good Unionist proposal, they would not under any circumstances vote against the Government. For this reason we should oppose the Bill at every point.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): Speak for Britain.
    Mr. Anthony Barber: No insults to Ulster, please.
    The Minister will have listened to the reasoned remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest) and I would not like to fall foul of the Chair by elaborating his point about lack of support for the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary's answer, though courteous, was completely unsatisfactory. When this matter was debated in Standing Committee on a new Clause moved by the Minister—the provision which the Amendment seeks to delete—the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "…there is already, in the nationalisation statutes, power in the hands of the Minister to control capital development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; c. 2377.]
    However, this part of the Bill is concerned with any building project of a

    1301
    kind covered by the Building Control Act, 1966, which costs more than £50,000. Will the Minister deal with matters of this kind—with every relevant building project by the Corporation or any of its subsidiaries costing more than £50,000? My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) pointed out what we know to be the truth; that the Minister does not concern himself with matters of detail of this kind. Instead, they are considered by junior officials in the Ministry. The Minister accepts responsibility, but he would never know about a project as minor as this and we in the House of Commons would not have an opportunity of questioning him about it.
    The Minister has repeatedly said that the new steel industry is to be operated on commercial lines. In that case, let it be operated subject to the same advantages, but also to the same multifarious and manifold Government hindrances, suffered by the private sector. There is only one way to ensure that this will happen, and that is by supporting the Amendment.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Lubbock: I was in two minds about the Amendment until I listened to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest), who not only convinced me of the strength of the case but also appeared to convince the Government Front Bench, because I noticed that when he resumed his seat the Minister and his colleagues cheered.
    Mr. Marsh: Since I came into the Chamber rather late, would the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) succinctly précis the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest)?
    Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman adduced a complicated argument. I do not think I have the experience of public speaking to summarise it in a way that would be intelligible to the Minister. I suggest we leave it to HANSARD; and we will read with interest the important words uttered by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Forrest: On a point of order. Surely the people of Mid-Ulster are as entitled to be represented in this House as the people of Orpington.
    The Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): That is not a point of order, although the hon. Gentleman's observation is quite correct.
    Mr. Lubbock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not take anything I have said as being critical of his speech. I listened to him with the greatest respect and interest and look forward to reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of his remarks.
    As the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed out, the Minister said in Committee that there already existed in the nationalisation Statutes power for the Minister to control capital development. That is perfectly true, but I submit that different criteria will be applied by the Minister in approving the capital development programmes of the Corporation than will be applied by the Minister of Public Building and Works in interpreting the Building Control Act, 1966.
    The main purpose of the 1966 Act is to ensure that the load of work on the construction industry in areas where it is already overloaded is relieved so that building firms may concentrate their energies on essential projects, particularly housing, whereas the Minister, in giving his consent to building projects which would otherwise fall under the Act, will be thinking purely in terms of economics and about whether the investment in buildings will bring about for the Corporation the sort of return he thinks is necessary.
    We shall, therefore, have one set of rules for the private sector and a completely different set—which might be good in themselves—for the public sector. If the Building Control Act, 1966, is to mean anything and if the load is to be taken off the construction industry in areas where it is overloaded, the same rules should be applied to both sectors. That being so, I support the Amendment and hope that the Minister will, in view of the strong arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, accept it.
    Mr. Freeson: I regret that I cannot accept the arguments, and we must resist the Amendment. A good deal of misunderstanding has been injected into the discussion. I do not wish to extend it widely over the question of building control any more than other hon. Members have done but will simply touch upon it.

    1303
    It is quite wrong to suggest that by excluding the steel industry from control under the Building Control Act, 1966, a double standard is being applied, as was indicated by all hon. Members opposite who have spoken with the honourable exception of the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Forrest).
    Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Should not the hon. Gentleman have said "with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster"?
    Sir John Eden: He could have said "with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster".
    Mr. Freeson: Hon. Members opposite have made the point clearly. There is no question of a double standard here.
    Over a good many years, ever since nationalisation was introduced for a number of industries, there has been close Government control over investment policies in these industries, just as there has been over a wide range of public expenditure and activity in building construction. One example, is local authority housing. A wide range of educational expenditure, and so on, can be added to the list. Such control has already existed. It continues to exist.
    Neither in the case of the Ministry of Housing, the Department of Education and Science nor of any other nationalised industry are the activities concerned with building brought within the scope of the Building Control Act, 1966, for the very reason that they already were under control. The whole object of the 1966 Act was to provide some kind of control in this field outside the public sector.
    Having made those general observations on the purpose or philosophy of the 1966 Act, I come back to the steel industry—
    Mr. Barber: The hon. Gentleman made an error, I think, a moment ago when he said that the Building Control Act was not to apply to the steel industry. It is not to apply to the nationalised part of the steel industry, but it will apply to the private sector. The important point is that there is here direct competition between comparable companies of a sort which does not apply to education and the other sectors which the hon. Gentle-
    1304
    man has mentioned. It is for this reason and in the light of what has been said that I must advise my hon. Friends to divide in support of their Amendment.
    Mr. Freeson: There still continues to be a misunderstanding here. While it is true that different Acts of Parliament apply in the field of control, the fact remains that there will still be control. What we are saying is that that part of the steel industry which will become the public sector, should operate under the same conditions as other nationalised industries which are already subject to control in this way.
    Mr. Forrest: Where are the hon. Members on the Government side who represent steel constituencies?
    Mr. Freeson: Perhaps we can meet afterwards in the Lobby and discuss matters further.
    I stress that there is no question of double standards. Controls already exist in the nationalised sector. They will exist in the nationalised sector of the steel industry just as they have been applied in different ways under the Building Control Act, 1966, which also is selective in its application. That, however, is a matter for another Minister and not for us this evening to go into detail.
    The Building Control Act, 1966, provides that no building works except those for housing, industrial building and laboratories and any in development districts should proceed without a licence where the projects concerned are likely to cost £50,000 or more. All the nationalised industries as listed in the Schedule to that Act were exempt from this requirement. We suggest that the same thing should apply equally with regard to the steel industry.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The Parliamentary Secretary is not dealing with the point put forward by myself or the point made by any of my hon. Friends. I have with me the Schedule to the Building Control Act, 1966. It delineates all the nationalised industries. None of those industries, however, has a private sector against which to compete. That is the first essential point. The second essential point is that none of those industries is a manufacturing industry such as steel, which

    1305
    has to compete both in the United Kingdom and overseas. It is, therefore, wholly fallacious to compare the position of the National Steel Corporation with, for example, the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board.
    Mr. Freeson: I need not repeat all the points I have been making. I repeat, however, that exactly the same type of control is being applied, or would be applied by the Ministry of Power, in this sector as is already being applied in other nationalised sectors and is being applied by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the private sector.
    Mr. Peyton: The Parliamentary Secretary need not go into this at length. The question which he is not facing is our objection that this control which is imposed on private industry is imposed by different people for different purposes from different points of view. It is no good the hon. Gentleman going into the fact that these errors have been committed before. We did our best to discourage the Minister from pursuing this doctrine, which I can only describe as the perpetuation of past errors. There is nothing that

    Division No. 247.]

    AYES

    [5.12 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Concannon, J. D.

    Fowler, Gerry

    Albu, Austen

    Conlan, Bernard

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Freeson, Reginald

    Alldritt, Walter

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gardner, Tony

    Allen, Scholefield

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ginsburg, David

    Anderson, Donald

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Gourlay, Harry

    Archer, Peter

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dalyell, Tam

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Gregory, Arnold

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Barnett, Joel

    Delargy, Hugh

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Dewar, Donald

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Bence, Cyril

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Harper, Joseph

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Dobson, Ray

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Doig, Peter

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Binns, John

    Driberg, Tom

    Haseldine, Norman

    Blackburn, F

    Dunn, James A.

    Hazell, Bert

    Boardman, H.

    Dunnett, Jack

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Booth, Albert

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Henig, Stanley

    Boston, Terence

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Eadie, Alex

    Hilton, W. S.

    Boyden, James

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hooley, Frank

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Horner, John

    Bradley, Tom

    Ellis, John

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    English, Michael

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Ennals, David

    Howie, W.

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Ensor, David

    Hoy, James

    Brown, Bob (M'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Buchan, Norman

    Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Finch, Harold

    Hunter, Adam

    Cant, R. B.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Hynd, John

    Carmichael, Neil

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Foley, Maurice

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Chapman, Donald

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Coe, Denis

    Ford, Ben

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Coleman, Donald

    Forrester, John

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bn&St. P'crae, S.)

    the hon. Gentleman can say to justify it. We had better divide.
    Mr. Freeson: No doubt hon. Members opposite want to divide, but if they keep on repeating points in error I must deal with them. I will not elaborate the point because I have dealt with it, but I repeat that the same kind of control will apply in the public sector of the steel industry as will be applied by the Ministry of Public Building and Works over the private sector.
    The adequacy of the controls was questioned. I can only say that we in the Ministry of Power are just as capable of providing as adequate a control in the public sector as will be exercised by the Ministry of Public Building and Works in the private sector, and which hon. Members opposite would like us to follow for the nationalised steel industry.
    I have covered the points as well as I have been able. There is no double standard. There will be no inadequate control. We must resist the Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Morris, John (Aberavon)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Strechford)

    Moyle, Roland

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Murray, Albert

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Neal, Harold

    Slater, Joseph

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Small, William

    Judd, Frank

    Oakes, Gordon

    Snow, Julian

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Ogden, Eric

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Steele, Thomas (Dumbartonshire, W.)

    Lawson, George

    Oram, Albert E.

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Ledger, Ron

    Orbach, Maurice

    Stonehouse, John

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Orme, Stanley

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Oswald, Thomas

    Swain, Thomas

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Loughlin, Charles

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Luard, Evan

    Paget, R. T.

    Taverne, Dick

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Park, Trevor

    Thornton, Ernest

    McCann, John

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Tinn, James

    MacColl, James

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Tomney, Frank

    MacDermot, Niall

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Tuck, Raphael

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Urwin, T. W.

    McGuire, Michael

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Varley, Eric G.

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Pentland, Norman

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mackie, John

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Wallace, George

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Weitzman, David

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Randall, Harry

    Wellbeloved, James

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Rankin, John

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Redhead, Edward

    Whitaker, Ben

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Whitlock, William

    Mal1alieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

    Richard. Ivor

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Mapp, Charles

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Marquand, David

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Mason, Roy

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mellish, Robert

    Rose, Paul

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Winnick, David

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Millan, Bruce

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Ryan, John

    Woof, Robert

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Yates, Victor

    Molloy, William

    Sheldon, Robert

    Zilliacus, K.

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythershawe)

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

    Mr. Grey and Mr. McBride.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Campbell, Gordon

    Forrest, George

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Fortescue, Tim

    Astor, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Clark, Henry

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Clegg, Walter

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Batsford, Brian

    Cooke, Robert

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Bell, Ronald

    Cordle, John

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Costain, A. P.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Gower, Raymond

    Bessell, Peter

    Crawley, Aidan

    Grant, Anthony

    Biffen, John

    Crouch, David

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Grieve, Percy

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Blaker, Peter

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Body, Richard

    Dance, James

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Braine, Bernard

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Doughty, Charles

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hastings, Stephen

    Brown, St Edward (Bath)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Hawkins, Paul

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Eden, Sir John

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Bryan, Paul

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Buchanan, Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Heseltine, Michael

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Farr, John

    Higgins, Terence L

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hill J. E. B.

    Burden, F. A.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    1308

    1309

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Holland, Philip

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Sharples, Richard

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Hordern, Peter

    Monro, Hector

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Hornby, Richard

    More, Jasper

    Smith, John

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Stainton, Keith

    Hunt, John

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Steel, David (Roxburg)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Murton, Oscar

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Neave, Airey

    Teeling, Sir William

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Temple, John M.

    Jopling, Michael

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Nott, John

    Tilney, John

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Onslow, Cranley

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Kitson, Timothy

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Knight, Mrs. Jilt

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Lambton, Viscount

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Wall, Patrick

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walters, Dennis

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Percival, Ian

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Peyton, John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Longden, Gilbert

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Loveys, W. H.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Pym, Francis

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Maddan, Martin

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Wylie, N. R.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Younger, Hn. George

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Marten, Neil

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Maude, Angus

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. David Mitchell.

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Royle, Anthony

    Mawby, Ray

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Clause 33.—(LOCATION OF OFFICES OF CORPORATION.)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 27, line 44, at the end to insert:
    The Corporation shall not, without the permission of the Minister, locate its head office in the Greater London Area.
    This is an Amendment to a new Clause I moved in Standing Committee. If the purpose of the Clause is to be put into practice, it is essential that the Amendment be accepted. The Clause provides that
    "In determining the location of its commercial and administratve offices, the Corporation shall have regard to"
    where the steel is produced and also to the desirability of distributing major offices throughout the United Kingdom.
    It was a serious point I made. I am glad to say that more than half the members of the Standing Committee supported my contention. The Government accepted it. I was distressed to discover that one of the reasons why the Government felt able to accept it was that they believed that there was not much point in the
    1310
    Clause and that it did not oblige anybody to do anything. We must therefore press the Government by writing a little more specification into the Clause.
    I accept that the Corporation must be free to take into account all relevant considerations in making its decision. The Amendment would allow full scope to the Corporation to make what decision it thought fit, except in one limited circumstance, namely, if it were to decide that the headquarters of its organisation should be in the Greater London Area. If the Corporation wanted to locate its head office in Wales, in Glasgow, in Sheffield, in Newcastle, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, it would be free to do so. The only limitation we are putting on the Corporation is if it were to decide to locate its headquarters in London.
    It would be short-sighted, irresponsible and economic madness for the Government to locate this headquarters office in the Greater London Area. If the Corporation were to decide to locate its headquarters in London, there would be a volume of protest from Rutherglen to the Rhondda Valley. The Government's good faith on the distribution of offices

    1311
    is at stake. This is the first major decision they will have to make on the location of a substantial headquarters of a local authority. The Government's good intentions and good faith will be on trial.
    The Amendment should not be necessary, because all the arguments point to the headquarters of the organisation going elsewhere than London. What should the Government take into account? They should take into account, first, where the steel is produced. What are the alternatives? There are 31,000 men employed in steel in Scotland, 57,000 in Sheffield, 59,000 in South Wales, and 39,000 on the North-East Coast. The map which was issued with "Steel Statistics" showing where steel is produced indicates clearly that there is little, if any steel, produced south of a line drawn between the Wash and the Severn. To that extent, the alternatives would seem to be where the steel is produced. I am not making a special pleading for Scotland or for Glasgow. I ask the Government to do what they can to ensure that the offices will be located where the steel is produced.
    The second factor the Government should take into account is where the steel is used—in other words, where heavy industry is located. This is certainly not in the Greater London area. The Government should take these factors into account. They should also take into account the desirability of distributing major Government offices throughout the United Kingdom.
    On 1st October of last year there were almost 1 million non-industrial civil servants. This is a very substantial number of employed people earning money through the Civil Service. Obviously civil servants must be spread throughout the whole country. What worries me is that the top jobs with the high earnings tend more and more to be concentrated in the Greater London area. This means that the opportunities, the top jobs and the top salaries are not available throughout the country. Scotland has one-tenth of the United Kingdom's total population, yet the only major Government headquarters office, which we will have shortly, is the Post Office Savings Bank, thanks to a decision made by the Tory Government and being promulgated at present.
    1312
    Emigration from Scotland is now running at 47,000 a year—an all-time high. This figure is increasing. This is worrying in itself. What is more worrying is the quality of those who are leaving. A higher proportion of Scottish young people go to university than in any other part of the country. It is essential that they have opportunities for the top jobs at the top salaries in Scotland. This applies to Wales and to the other development districts. This is why the Tory Government were right to make the decision in principle to distribute major Government offices throughout the country.
    I should like to see the Labour Government showing, not only that they pay lip service to this principle, as I know that they readily will, but also that they are prepared to do something about it. The danger is that, because of the concentration of top jobs and top salaries in London, instead of having integrated factories in the regions, we are merely having workshops, while the decisions, the top salaries, and all the rest, are becoming concentrated more and more in the London area. This is happening in private industry as well as in the public sector. Something must be done about it.
    For these reasons, we must put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the Government to make this decision, if the Corporation should decide to have its headquarters in the Greater London area. If the Government do not accept this, they will be shirking their responsibilities because, even though we have the Clause, unless the Government are prepared to take some initiative I fear that the headquarters of the organisation, like the headquarters of so many Government organisations, will be sited in London.
    Everyone is familiar with the reasons why we do not want more offices to be concentrated in London. This is why the Government have introduced certain Bills affecting the private sector. We want the same principle to be applied to Government offices as well. The tragedy is that, although the Government try to discourage office buildings in our major city centres, when a building becomes vacant it is usually a Government office or a Government-sponsored organisation which moves into it quickly. We ask the Government to take the lead in the distribution of offices.

    1313
    My final point relates to the simple question of justice. A large proportion of the population of the United Kingdom is situated in Wales. One-tenth of the total United Kingdom population is in Scotland On the North-East Coast there is a high proporation. Surely we are entitled to some share of the major Government offices, of the jobs they bring, and of the opportunities they bring. Unless we have these, the scope of opportunities in the regions will certainly not be the same as it is in the centre.
    I want to make this the Government's decision. I do not say that under the Amendment we should prevent the Corporation from having its office in London. There might be such overwhelming reasons in favour of its being sited there that such a decision would be inevitable. However, there should be a thorough examination of all the arguments. This examination should be made by the Government.
    I have explained that I am not at all happy with the Bill. It could be the beginning of the end for Scottish steel if the Government bring in differential prices, as with the other nationalised industries. This is why I am absolutely delighted that on this important Amendment, which is of significance to Scotland. the Minister of State, Scottish Office and two of the Under-Secretaries of State are present. This may be a belated indication that the Government are now aware of the desperate dangers to Scottish steel which the Bill presents.
    I should like to have the assurance, which the presence of these three Ministers indicates can be given, that the Government are now becoming aware that the Bill could be disastrous for Scottish steel. I want in some way to temper that by ensuring that at least in regard to offices the Government are prepared to carry the responsibility themselves. This is what they should be prepared to do. If they believe in regional development, let them take the responsibility of undertaking a thorough examination of any proposal that the offices be located in London. I fear that the decision on the location of the headquarters might already have been taken. I want to ensure that there will be a thorough examination and a deep study of the interests of the regions in general and of Scotland in particular.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bence: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) should have listed the Ministry of Social Security at Newcastle-up-Tyne and the Post Office Savings Bank in Scotland as examples of the Government's deciding where commercial enterprises should locate their offices. It is all right for Government Departments to be spread around. They are bureaucratic institutions. They do not have to compete with world industry. They do not have to meet traders and buyers. They do not have to deal with market research. I advise my right hon. Friend to reject the Amendment.
    It would be disastrous if a Minister of the Crown made a decision on behalf of a vast commercial enterprise that it should establish its administrative centre on the same principle as we establish Government Departments. I dread to see the day when a commercial enterprise is run and located on the same basis as Government Departments. Furthermore, it would be disastrous if the head offices of the Steel Corporation happened to be located in the vicinity of one of the major steel plants. It is very often the experience that when one has a commercial enterprise with a number of production units it is always best to have the main administrative offices situated other than in the immediate locality of one of them. It is far better for the main commercial and administrative offices to be apart from the different production units of an industry. One could quote dozens of cases through the light engineering industry where that has been fatal.
    Great concern would be caused to many people who take the wider view, rather than the parochial one of the hon. Member for Cathcart, if the administrative offices should be located on the decision of the Minister for purely party political cases and not based upon the commercial requirements of the production system or the industry with which that set-up is concerned.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: Despite what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has just said, I submit to the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has made a most powerful and incisive point. He

    1315
    has not asked for what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East implied. He has not asked for such a decision. What he has asked is that it should not be done without the consent of the Minister.
    I should have thought that the Government would he bound to accept not only the wording but the spirit of the Amendment. It goes even further than my hon. Friend said it did. If it should be decided to centralise the head office of this new Corporation in London, there would be a deprivation of valuable high quality office employment from the existing centres of the companies affected. To that extent the case is even stronger.
    I am sure that my hon Friend is pleased to see certain Scottish Ministers present—
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: For the first time.
    Mr. Gower: I wish that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs was present to stake a claim for the Principality—and, conceivably, other Ministers concerned.
    I hope that the Minister will look at this matter with extreme care. It has been said to be the policy of the Government to resist the development of large office buildings in London in particular and, as my hon. Friend said, they have pressed this on private industry. It would he deplorable if what they imposed upon private industry should be resisted by a great State board of this kind.
    The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East suggested that it would be intolerable for foreign buyers coming to this country, but I would remind him that it is far more difficult for a foreign visitor to get to the City of London than to many places which are just outside London.
    Mr. Bence: I thought that I had made the point clear that those who manage the industry should decide the best location for their administrative offices and such things as their market research department. It should be a decision based on the commercial assessment which they make in the best interests of the industry.
    Mr. Gower: It would be quite improper in this case. It would be far
    1316
    better that it should not be done without the consent of the Minister, in view of the great issues at stake, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend.
    In Standing Committee, the Minister said that he was aware of the importance of this issue. He went on:
    "I only make the point that no decision has been taken on the siting of the offices of the Corporation. Indeed, within the last two weeks, the Chairman-designate of the Corporation, who has taken this matter very seriously, has met deputations from Cardiff and Sheffield wholly and solely to discuss where the offices should be sited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; c. 2412.]
    I hope that that is a hopeful sign that nothing has happened since he uttered those words to change the position radically. Therefore, as I said in my opening remarks, I hope that he will accept both the wording and the spirit of the Amendment.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Before the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) sits down, can he tell us whether there is anything at the moment which prevents the offices of the Steel Corporation being located in any part of the country, after due consideration? Secondly, may I ask him if he would transfer Steel House in part or wholly, at one fell swoop?
    Mr. Gower: In the first place, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart explained that this matter was of such importance that he wanted it to be beyond doubt. I echo those words. The second point does not arise, because here we have a new concentration in a totally different form.
    Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there not a rule that hon. Members are not allowed to bring lethal weapons into the House? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) are in deadly peril so long as the right hon. Gentleman goes on swinging his chain round his arm. If it slips, someone will get hurt.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Brian O'Malley: There was a long and heated discussion on these matters during the Committee

    1317
    stage, and obviously one would not want to listen to all the arguments that were put forward on that occasion. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) had been a member of the Committee—and I have had the privilege of serving with him on a number of Committees—all the indications are that the temperature in the Committee when this matter was discussed would have been even higher. I find it a strange argument coming from him that the head offices of an industrial organisation should preferably be sited some distance from the works. I cannot see the advantage in doing that.
    Mr. Bence: I did not suggest that. What I said was that, in the case of an industrial complex with a number of units spread round the country, the decision about siting the market research department and the administrative offices must be that of the managers of that organisation and not one imposed upon them by someone outside.
    Mr. O'Malley: If I may say so, that was the second point which my hon. Friend raised, and I shall comment on that briefly in due course. It is certainly true that the decision about where the headquarters of the National Steel Corporation are to be should be that of the National Steel Corporation. It would be wrong, however, for the corporation to take that decision unilaterally, without full discussions with the Minister. In his remarks in Committee, the Minister gave no indication that he expected or desired that such full discussions should take place.
    I hope that the debate today will not be parochial. It was not during the Committee stage, because the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) suggested that the headquarters ought to be in Brussels, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) had an even more novel suggestion and thought that it ought to be in a caravan and move round the country.
    I appreciate that this was a serious matter, and some of us did not like it being treated with such levity. Perhaps the unfortunate part of the proceedings in Committee was that, if there was any parochialism, it came from the Minister, who wanted it sited in Greenwich. It
    1318
    may be that that is the reason why the Minister, apparently, does not intend to reply to the debate and will leave it to his Parliamentary Secretary, because he is an interested party. We ought to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Minister has been making representations to the National Steel Corporation for the siting of its headquarters in Greenwich.
    If I may close with one very brief remark, the advantages and disadvantages of the siting of the headquarters of the Steel Corporation either in London or in the provinces, in one of the steel centres, were adequately discussed during the Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will bear the arguments in mind, and that the National Steel Corporation and the Organising Committee, in considering the matter, will bear in mind not only the arguments then put forward but also the feelings expressed on both sides during the course of them.
    I believe that the decision should be taken by the National Steel Corporation in conjunction with the Minister, having listened to what the Minister has to say about overall Government policy on regional development and the moving of office employment out of London into the provinces, where often there is a pool of labour and where employment is badly needed. In addition, the Minister should not allow the offices to be in London unless it is demonstrated clearly that there are special reasons why they should be.
    5.45 p.m.
    I do not want to push this Amendment down my right hon. Friend's throat. I am not taking that attitude. But I hope he recognises that there are very cogent reasons why the headquarters should not be in London. I also know that there is a strong feeling in this House that the Government would be following their own regional policy if these offices were located elsewhere than in the capital.
    Mr. Gower: But the Amendment would strengthen the hand of the Minister if the hon. Gentleman pushed it through.
    Mr. O'Malley: That is only if the Minister is pushing the case for Greenwich. I do not know whether he is. He may feel inclined to intervene and say what the situation is. Unless there

    1319
    are very special reasons which can be demonstrated for having the headquarters in London, I hope that they will be sited in one of the great steel complexes.
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I support the Amendment. It is straightforward and on both sides of the House there is a good deal of support for the principle behind it. If there are insurmountable difficulties on the practical side, that is another matter. But there is a strong feeling in the country that we have far too much concentration of offices in London, including Government offices, and that when there is an opportunity to do something about it, as there will be in this case, advantage should be taken of that opportunity. For that reason, I hope that the Government will look at the position very carefully.
    There is a good opportunity here to do something by siting these offices outside the Greater London area. I am pleased to see two Scottish Ministers on the Front Bench. I hope this is an earnest of their interest in the issue for we know that they are very busy people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully. From the speeches we have heard in the debate, I cannot recall any practical reason why the Corporation should not have its offices outside the Greater London area.
    I do not claim to have the practical knowledge of some hon. Members but there is, I know, a very strong feeling that this is a time when the Government should show their interest in other centres which happen to have strong claims and I put forward the claims of Scotland because Scotland would provide a practical site for these offices.
    Mr. Freeson: It might be as well if I intervene now in order to give a general assurance that there is no difference of policy between us. The only issue is whether the Amendment should be accepted, and we do not consider it necessary. Indeed, it could be harmful. The very reference to "head office" makes a false distinction. The point at issue here, both with regard to the steel industry and to dispersal generally, which has been discussed at some length, is where one gets the staff and where one gets the dispersal policy in operation.
    1320
    The fact that one particular office is called a head office while another office is given some other name is a positive point. One can have a small head office in London while conducting a policy of dispersal. I give a general assurance that the views expressed in Committee are being taken into account very closely both by the Minister and the Organising Committee. In the thinking being given to the future of staffing and office arrangements, both the Minister and the Committee have very much in mind the idea of cutting down on the existing number of staff—2,000—established in London.
    It is not for me to say today precisely what the resultant pattern will be as a result of the study being made by the Organising Committee, which will be a matter for report to the Minister, or of the talks on this and other matters going on between the Minister and the Committee. This is a very important point to take into account. The Amendment is unnecessary because we are pursuing the policy that all hon. Members have supported, but it might restrict by its terminological inclusion the very policies that hon. Members are seeking to establish.
    I want to stress that there is a constant liaison between the Ministry and the Organising Committee, just as such liaison exists between the Ministry and the other nationalised industries on this matter. The important thing is to seek as far as possible to get dispersal into the right places but not to say whether the head office or the sales office, or any particular department, shall, with or without the permission of the Minister, go or not go to a certain part of the country. The important thing is to get dispersal, and I give the House an assurance that this policy is being and will continue to be pursued.
    Mr. Peyton: The Government are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). He has given them a chance to convert a Clause which consisted of eyewash into something with a little meaning. He has rendered a valuable service to his constituents in Scotland and it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) did not follow him in doing so.

    1321
    I believe that we can carry this preoccupation with office location too far. There seems something quite indecent about it. In Standing Committee I suggested that perhaps the best solution would be a steel caravan going around the country like a travelling circus. It would have the great advantage that it would presumably discourage the enrolment of a very large and swollen staff.
    I have been meditating on this important matter and have arrived at one or two other possible suggestions. One of them I do not put forward very seriously. It is that there should be a winter palace and a summer palace. That sort of conception would be quite in harmony with the general tone of Socialist bureaucracy.
    But my real suggestion is that these offices should be located in the most uncomfortable, insalubrious place in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am not prepared to name it. Perhaps very near to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East would be the answer. But this siting would really discourage a large swelling of the staff such as is only too apt to happen, despite the pious intentions of the Government whenever they introduce this kind of revolting Measure.
    One should try to avoid adding to the clutter of London, which has languished under Socialist government for many years and must be one of the world's worst-governed cities in history. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members opposite are sensitive on this point. I only threw it out on the spur of the moment and up they all got feeling very cross. They know how painful the truth can be to Socialist Ministers. We are always glad to have proof of the fact. I humbly return to the suggestion I made earlier—that the head office should be located in the most uncomfortable place that can be found in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: As a London Member, I fully support the Amendment. It would be the greatest mistake to have the head office of this new Corporation cluttering up our beautiful capital city. We do not want another thousand semi-civil servants in our overcrowded city. If the head office is located in London, all the ancillary offices will be in the Home Counties.
    1322
    The obvious place for the head office is probably in the North Midlands area, probably around Sheffield, which is a centre of gravity. Equally, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is right. We should not have it attached to a steel works—say, on the riverside at Rotherham, perhaps on the site of the old Rotherham steel works. But when one asks the chairman of a nationalised corporation why he has to have his offices in London, he says that he has to be near Whitehall to cook up answers to the Questions. We hope that the steel industry at least will be out of politics for a time and that questions and answers can be sent on the teleprinter.
    Mr. Harold Finch: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has put forward a point on behalf of the Midlands and Scotland. But a very large part of the industry is in South Wales—for instance, Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the Steel Company of Wales. The steel industry is very prominent in Wales. I hope that, if anything is done, these offices will go to Wales.
    Mr. Barber: During the four years when I was at the Treasury, we set in hand the movement of a number of head and other offices of a smaller character out of London into the provinces and to Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred to the movement of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow, a movement with which I was concerned, and I was delighted with the decision.
    My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will know, therefore, that I am in considerable sympathy with the objective of the Amendment. But the location of the head office or any office of the National Steel Corporation should be decided on purely commercial grounds, subject only to such Government policy which is applicable to industry generally. Secondly, I believe that the same considerations should apply as are applied in the case of private enterprise.
    6.0 p.m.
    Furthermore, I take the point of the Parilamentary Secretary about the meaning of "head office" because, of course, one can have a comparatively small head

    1323
    office dealing with overseas trade and, outside, the accounts department, the statistics department, the general domestic sales, marketing, production departments, and so on. But I do not agree with him in a number of the points he made. He said that if we pass the Amendment it might restrict the policy of the Corporation. It would only do so if the Minister of Power refused permission to the Corporation against its strong wishes. All those factors are highly relevant.
    I want to be brief, because there is still a considerable number of Amendments to get through and we hope to finish this business by about 7 o'clock. But there is one other overriding consideration. In practice we all know that it is inconceivable that the Corporation of a nationalised industry would ever be allowed to locate its head office in any place against the determined opposition of the Government of the day. That is a fact of life, and I have not the slightest doubt that, whether the Amendment is carried or not, if the right hon. Gentleman and his Cabinet colleagues were determined that for policy considerations the Corporation's head office should not be in a particular place, be it London or anywhere else in the United Kingdom,
    the head office would not be established there.
    It is therefore important to take note of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that in fact, "There is no difference on policy". That means no difference on policy between that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart who moved the Amendment with his usual ability, and the policy of the Government. Therefore, the Amendment does little more than to formalise the actual position. If it gives some measure of comfort and encouragement to those people who do not believe that this Government takes a sufficiently robust view of regional policy and the location of offices, there is a lot to be said for passing it.
    I have deliberately outlined the case for and against the Amendment. In the light of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that there is no difference in policy at all, and bearing in mind that in practice the Government of the day would be able to veto the location of the head office in a particular place, I believe that my hon. Friend would be right to press his Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 270.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Monro, Hector

    Sharples, Richard

    Iremonger, T. L.

    More, Jasper

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Smith, John

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Stainton, Keith

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Jopling, Michael

    Murton, Oscar

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Neave, Airey

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Teeling, Sir William

    Kitson, Timothy

    Nott, John

    Temple, John M.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Onslow. Cranley

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Lambton, Viscount

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Tilney, John

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wall, Patrick

    Longden, Gilbert

    Percival, Ian

    Walters, Dennis

    Loveys, W. H.

    Peyton, John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Lubbock, Eric

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Weatherill, David

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Pym, Francis

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Maddan, Martin

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Marten, Neil

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Maude, Angus

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Worsley, Marcus

    Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Wylie, N. R.

    Mawby, Ray

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Royle, Anthony

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Mr. David Mitchell and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

    Miscampbell. Norman

    Scott, Nicholas

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Gregory, Arnold

    Albu, Austen

    Cronin, John

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Allaun, Frank (Salfort, E.)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Afldritt, Walter

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llaneliy)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Anderson, Donald

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Archer, Peter

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Harper, Joseph

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Haseldine, Norman

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Dewar, Donald

    Hazell, Bert

    Bagier, Cordon A. T.

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Barnett, Joel

    Dickens, James

    Henig, Stanley

    Beilenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Dobson, Ray

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Bence, Cyril

    Doig, Peter

    Hilton, w. S.

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Driberg, Tom

    Hooley, Frank

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Brldgeton)

    Dunn, James A.

    Horner, John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dunnett, Jack

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Binns, John

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Blackburn, F.

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'cl

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Boardman, H.

    Eadie, Alex

    Hoy, James

    Booth, Albert

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Boston, Terence

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur

    Ellis, John

    Hunter, Adam

    Boyden, James

    English, Michael

    Hynd, John

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Ensor, David

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Bradley, Tom

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spento'gh)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Finch, Harold

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)

    Buchan, Norman

    Foley, Maurice

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Cant, R. B.

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.)

    Carmichael, Nell

    Ford, Ben

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Forrester, John

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Fowler, Gerry

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Chapman, Donald

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Judd, Frank

    Coe, Denis

    Freeson, Reginald

    Kelley, Richard

    Coleman, Donald

    Gardner, Tony

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Concannon, J. D.

    Garrett, W. E.

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Ginsburg, David

    Lawson, George

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gourlay, Harry

    Ledger, Ron

    Craddock, Ctorge (Bradford, S.)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    1326

    1327

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Slater, Joseph

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Small, William

    Lipton, Marcus

    Orme, Stanley

    Snow, Julian

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Oswald, Thomas

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Loughlin, Charles

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Luard, Evan

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Paget, R. T.

    Stonehouse, John

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    McCann, John

    Park, Trevor

    Swain, Thomas

    MacColl, James

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Swingler, Stephen

    MacDermot, Niall

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Taverne, Dick

    McGuire, Michael

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Thornton, Ernest

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Pentland, Norman

    Tinn, James

    Mackie, John

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    Tomney, Frank

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Maclennan, Robert

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Urwin, T. W.

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Varley, Eric G.

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Probert, Arthur

    Wallace, George

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Randall, Harry

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

    Rankin, John

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Mapp, Charles

    Redhead, Edward

    Weitzman, David

    Marquand, David

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Mason, Roy

    Richard, Ivor

    Whitaker, Ben

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Mellish, Robert

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

    Whitlock, William

    Mendelson, J, J.

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Mikardo, Ian

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Millan, Bruce

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Rose, Paul

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Mitchell, R. C. (Sth'pton, Test)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Molloy, William

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Moonman, Eric

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Ryan, John

    Winnick, David

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Moyle, Roland

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Woof, Robert

    Murray, Albert

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Yates, Victor

    Neal, Harold

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Norwood, Christopher

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ogden, Eric

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Mr. McBride and Mr. Howie.

    Clause 34.—(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AS TO PUBLICLY-OWNED COMPANIES.)
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 28, line 17, to leave out from 'company' to the end of line 25, and to insert:
    'or form, or take part in forming, a company '.
    This does for publicly-owned companies what an earlier Amendment did for the Corporation in requiring the Minister's consent for the purchase or acquisition of interests in iron and steel companies as well as in companies not engaged in iron and steel activities. It meets a point made by the Opposition in Committee and I therefore hope that the House will accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 36.—(FURNISHING OF INFORMATION TO THE MINISTER AND THE CORPORATION.)
    Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in pave 29, line 1, after 'specified' to insert 'and'.
    Before the Bill went into Committee, Clause 36(1), then Clause 34(1), provided for the Minister to collect certain information from Schedule 1 companies, their subsidiaries, any person with property or rights owned on or since 4th November, 1964, by a Schedule 1 company or its subsidiary and every other iron and steel producer.
    In Committee, the Government accepted an Opposition Amendment to remove the last group of persons—other iron and steel producers—from the list of those subject to this obligation. The list was shortened by one and it therefore became necessary to insert the word 'and' before the new last item in the list. That is what the Amendment does.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Barber: I beg to move Amendment No. 145, in page 29, line 28, after 'such' to insert 'iron and steel'.
    The two Amendments which are being taken with this, Amendment No. 146, in page 29, line 31, after 'notice', insert:
    '(being not less than 28 days)'
    and Amendment No. 147, in page 26, line 31, after 'periodically', insert:
    '(at intervals of not less than six months)'
    are self-explanatory and I need say no more about them. However, I must explain the purpose of Amendment No. 145, which, although superficially of a minor character, is of considerable significance.
    Under Clause 36(2), which the Amendment seeks to amend, the Minister has power to obtain from the 200 smaller iron and steel companies which are to remain in private enterprise details of their output and of their capacity not only of iron and steel products, but of anything else which they manufacture, either at present, or as a result of diversification at any time in future.
    Whether the Minister should have this power to obtain details of output and capacity of iron and steel products is open to argument and we have already considered that question, but there can be no justification whatever for the Minister taking power to obtain commercially secret information about products which have absolutely nothing to do with iron and steel.
    Over the years, many of the 200 private enterprise companies will diversify their activities and it would be an outrageous imposition for the Minister to take power to obtain information from the private sector about products which are wholly divorced from the iron and steel industry. Yet, under the Bill as drafted, the Minister is seeking just that power and, what is more, any person who declines to comply with the Minister's request will be liable to a criminal prosecution. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will think that this is an error in the Bill and will consequently accept the Amendment.
    Mr, John H. Osborn: I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. I cannot believe that he wants to have details of the
    1330
    diversified activities of the steel companies in the private sector.
    I have been considering some of the activities of the steel companies in Sheffield, for instance. I am certain that he does not want to know about the ramifications of Jessop-Saville which is a member of the B.S.A. group. There is a well-known company making hand tools and garden tools and other engineering equipment, Spear & Jackson Ltd., which is also a steel manufacturer and I am certain that the Minister does not want to know anything about those activities of that company.
    Another well-known company in Sheffield is Edgar Allen whose products range from butt-welded tools to cement machinery—it is engaged in making rotary dryers, electro magnetic chucks and pulverised fuel equipment and has diversified into fans and other equipment for the ventilation of mines. I am certain that the Minister would want to know details only of its steel making activities. Balfour Darwins products include tools and permanent magnets as well as alloy castings. Another well-known company is James Neill and I am certain that the Minister would want to know no details other than about its steel making in its subsidiary, Hallomshire Steel. My own company ventures into fabrications, the manufacture of steel castings, steel extrusions and small tools. Again, I assume that the Minister wants details of iron and steel products only.
    The object of the Amendment is to make certain that the Minister will obtain details only of the iron and steel making activities. I sincerely hope that he will accept the Amendment which is in keeping with the views which he has expressed in Committee and on Report. I can see no justification for not accepting it.
    Mr. Freeson: The Amendment is acceptable. The Minister needs power to collect forecasts about the private sector's output of and capacity to produce iron and steel products because the development of the steel industry needs to be looked at as a whole and therefore he will need to know about the private sector's plans in assessing the Corporation's development plans under Section 4(2) of the 1949 Act revived. He will also need the information in connection with his control of the private

    1331
    sector's own development under Clause 13. These considerations arise from the special circumstances of the iron and steel industry and do not apply to products other than iron and steel products. It had always been intended that the Minister's power should be used only to collect forecasts relating to iron and steel products.
    The other Amendment briefly touched on by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), Nos. 146 and 147, are not acceptable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 29, line 32, at the beginning to insert:
    'Subject to subsection (6A) below'.
    This Amendment and Amendment No. 100 are purely paving Amendments for Amendment No. 101, which limits the Corporation's power under subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 36 to collect information from representative organisations of the iron and steel industry and persons providing common services for iron and steel producers to a period until two years from vesting date. The Amendment is a pure formality.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 100, in page 29, line 43, at beginning insert:
    'Subject to subsection (6A) below'.—[Mr. Marsh.]
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 148, in page 30, line 12, after ' officer ' to insert:
    'having control of such organisation's records'.
    This is a very narrow point but one which I believe the Government will consider with sympathy.
    The obligation is placed on companies to make their records available to the Corporation for the purposes of the reorganisation of the steel industry. This obligation is subject to penalties which can be very severe—
    "a fine not exceeding £50. or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction…a fine not exceeding £200."
    The only person who should be subject to the liability to pay fines is any officer of the company who is responsible for the records which will have been called for by the notice served under subsection (3).
    1332
    To provide that the notice may be served on
    "such officer of the organisation as appears to the Corporation to be appropriate"
    might lead the Corporation to serve a notice on somebody who was inappropriate and who therefore might subsequently find himself subject to these penalities in circumstances in which he could do very little about it. It would not be difficult for the Corporation to select the right person on whom the notice should be served. In normal circumstances, in the case of a limited liability company, this is the secretary of the company.
    As I say, this is a narrow point, but since penal sanctions are involved we should specify clearly the nature of the person on whom the notice should be served and who, therefore, would become liable to the sanctions.
    Mr. Freeson: Certainly the normal procedure would be for such notices to be served on the secretaries of the organisations in question, but I am advised that the Amendment cannot be accepted because the Corporation would not necessarily know who had control of the organisation's records and might have no means of finding out with certainty. It would clearly be sufficient if it were to serve the notice on a responsible officer such as the secretary of the organisation.
    There is some uncertainty about the meaning of the expression
    "officer having control of such organisation's records".
    It might be taken to mean a servant of the organisation concerned with records but not with general policy and who had no general power of decision. The Corporation would want to impose a requirement on those with a general responsibility for the running of the organisation and not just those responsible for records to whom such responsibility would have been delegated. The normal procedure probably would be for the secretary of the organisation to receive such a notice.
    Because of the difficulties which I have indicated on what has been said to be a narrow point, I ask hon. Members not to press the Amendment.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, it

    1333
    still seems possible that in the case of a trade association or something of that sort which the Clause covers there might be, through inadvertence or unawareness of the problem, a notice served on, say, a chairman who is chairman for only a year, or a president, or someone who holds a rotating office of that sort who does not have control at all. It is not unreasonable that the Statute should give an indication of the nature of the officer on whom notice should be served.
    However, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he recognises that it is the intention that it should be the secretary or director-general, or somebody of that sort, on whom the notice should be served. If he would say that he will consider between now and the Bill going to another place whether it would be appropriate to indicate this, we would not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.
    Mr. Freeson: Without commitment, we shall consider very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed: No. 101, in page 30, line 13, at the end to insert:
    (6A) No notice shall be served by the Corporation under subsection (3) or subsection (4) above after the expiration of the period of twenty-four months beginning with the vesting date.—[Mr. Freeson]
    Mr. Speaker: We can consider at the same time the Amendment to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), to leave out "twenty-four" and insert "twelve".
    Mr. Michael Shaw: I should say a word of thanks to the Minister for introducing this Amendment as it goes a long way to meeting our fear that there seemed to be no time limit on when the notice could be served. Our only worry is whether the time limit is still of too great a duration. Many things can happen in 24 months, and one would have thought that the Corporation should have made up its mind about the type of information which it wanted a good deal quicker than in 24 months. However, we are grateful that a time limit has been imposed, and we
    1334
    are prepared to accept the Amendment in that spirit.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move Amendment No. 149, in page 30, line 16, to leave out from "shall" to "be" in line 17 and to insert:
    "if it is proved that he had no reasonable excuse".
    This is a very short, simple and, I trust, non-controversial Amendment. On the last occasion on which I had the pleasure of addressing the Parliamentary Secretary, he saw the point which I sought to put to him very quickly, and therefore I am sure that I shall not have to labour the argument on this Amendment. I hope that as we draw to the end of our lengthy discussions on Report he is in responsive mood.
    Let me remind the hon. Gentleman, since he comes comparatively freshly to the discussions, that in brief this matter concerns the onus of proof, and particularly the onus of proof on a person who fails to satisfy the obligation imposed by the Clause.
    6.30 p.m.
    I do not need to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the provisions of Clause 36 are very extensive. I know they have been whittled down in part as a result of persuasive argument in Standing Committee, but the fact remains that under subsection (7)
    "A person who fails to satisfy an obligation .. shall, unless he proves that he had reasonable excuse for the failure, be guilty of an offence."
    I want to say quite clearly to the Parliamentary Secretary that those words are totally unacceptable to us on this side of the House.
    A person who is facing the penalties laid down in Clause 36, and under that subsection in particular, is placed in the position of having to prove that he has reasonable excuse for the failure, and that is quite unacceptable to us. That is why in our Amendment we reverse the order, so that it has to be proved that he had no reasonable excuse. I would have hoped that this point would not need elaborating, certainly at this hour. The Minister, in Committee, has already shown himself to be susceptible to argument on this. There are very major ramifications here; there are very extensive

    1335
    matters which are required to be produced; there are very extensive duties laid upon the persons who are covered by this Clause. It surely does not seem reasonable that such a person should stand accused, as it were, by the words of subsection (7) as they stand at present.
    It is a short, simple and reasonable Amendment, and I confidently expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be able to accept it.
    Mr. Freeson: This is the kind of Amendment which I personally and, I am sure, all of us, would wish to support if it were possible to do so, because one sees the motivation of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and his Amendment. Normally, of course, it is right that a person liable to a penalty should not have the burden of proof of innocence placed upon him, but, unfortunately, in this case no other way, I am advised, would be workable; no other arrangement could be adopted which would be effective.
    Nobody except the person involved would have sufficient knowledge of the circumstances to be able to prove the case one way or another. No other person would be in the position to give the information required of him; it could not be collected and would be impossible to collect. Nobody else would be able to prove this, because nobody else would know whether the information was in fact available.
    There is another point. The requirements likely to be imposed under Clause 36 are straightforward and very factual. Whether or not any person has met them is not a question requiring a balance of probabilities, or, indeed, a question of right or wrong; it would be solely a factual matter. Normally, it would be quite obvious whether a person involved had complied with the obligations imposed on him.

    Division No. 249.]

    AYES

    [6.36 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Barnett, Joel

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Albu, Austen

    Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

    Boyden, James

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bence, Cyril

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Alldritt, Walter

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Bradley, Tom

    Allen, Scholefield

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Anderson, Donald

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Brooks, Edwin

    Archer, Peter

    Binns, John

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Blackburn, F.

    Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Boardman, H.

    Buchan, Norman

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Booth, Albert

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Boston, Terence

    Cant, R. B.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    It is for the reasons which I have briefly stated, and not in any spirit of antagonism at all to the motivation here, that I hope that the Amendment will be not pressed.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, forgive me for saying that he has not really applied his very considerable faculties to this case in the way I think it deserves. He took refuge in rather vague advice that there is no other way of encompassing the object of the Amendment. Of course, from the point of view of the Government this is the very much more convenient way of doing it—placing the onus of proof this way round, on the suspected person. It always will be.
    If I understood him aright, he argued that it would be impossible to prove whether the person had or had not produced the evidence required, but, after all, the Government have got first to be satisfied that that person has failed in his obligations. They have to have this information, anyway. They have to be certain that there is a prima facie case before they start. They will be in a position very well to judge whether the person had any reasonable excuse, and they should accept the onus of proof.
    I am afraid that I must say quite definitely that the Government argument is merely on convenience and expediency, and I think there is a considerable point of principle here. It is only out of deference to the hour that I do not argue it further. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will support me, for I have no intention whatever of withdrawing the Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 214.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Jackson, Colin (B'h'ae & Spenb'gh)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

    Chapman, Donald

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Coe, Denis

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Coleman, Donald

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'Cras, S.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Probert, Arthur

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Randall, Harry

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Johnson, Carol (Lewiaham, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Redhead, Edward

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Cronin, John

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Judd, Frank

    Richard, Ivor

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Lawson, George

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Ledger, Ron

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lestor, Miss Loan

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton)

    Delargy, Hugh

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Dewar, Donald

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Rose, Paul

    Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

    Lipton, Marcus

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Dickens, James

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Dobson, Ray

    Loughlin, Charles

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Doig, Peter

    Luard, Evan

    Ryan, John

    Driberg, Tom

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Dunnett, Jack

    McBride, Neil

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    McCann, John

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & G'b'e)

    MacColl, James

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Eadie, Alex

    MacDermot, Niall

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McGuire, Michael

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Ellis, John

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    English, Michael

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Slater, Joseph

    Ennals, David

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Small, William

    Ensor, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Snow, Julian

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Steel, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Finch, Harold

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Stonehouse, John

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Foley, Maurice

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Swain, Thomas

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)

    Swingler, Stephen

    Ford, Ben

    Mapp, Charles

    Taverne, Dick

    Forrester, John

    Marquand, David

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

    Fowler, Gerry

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Thornton, Ernest

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mason, Roy

    Tinn, James

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Tomney, Frank

    Gardner, Tony

    Mellish, Robert

    Tuck, Raphael

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Urwin, T. W.

    Ginsburg, David

    Mikardo, Ian

    Varley, Eric G.

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Millan, Bruce

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Gregory, Arnold

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Wallace, George

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Molloy, William

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Moonman, Eric

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Weitzman, David

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hamiton James (Bothwell)

    Moyle, Roland

    Whitaker, Ben

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Murray, Albert

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Haseldine, Norman

    Neal, Harold

    Whitlock, William

    Hazell, Bert

    Norwood, Christopher

    Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Ogden, Eric

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Henig, Stanley

    O'Malley, Brian

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Oram, Albert E.

    Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

    Hilton, W. S.

    Orbach, Maurice

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Hooley, Frank

    Orme, Stanley

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Horner, John

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Winnick, David

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Woof, Robert

    Howie, W.

    Park, Trevor

    Yates, Victor

    Hoy, James

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hunter, Adam

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Mr. Harper and Mr. Walter Harrison.

    Hynd, John

    Pentland, Norman

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Batsford, Brian

    Astor, John

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    1338

    1339

    Bell, Ronald

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Gurden, Harold

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nott, John

    Bessell, Peter

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Biffen, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Blaker, Peter

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Body, Richard

    Hastings, Stephen

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hawkins, Paul

    Pardoe, John

    Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Braine, Bernard

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Percival, Ian

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Heseltine, Michael

    Peyton, John

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Buchanan -Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

    Holland, Philip

    Pym, Francis

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Builus, Sir Eric

    Hordern, Peter

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Burden, F. A.

    Hornby, Richard

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Campbell, Gordon

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hunt, John

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Clark, Henry

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Clegg, Walter

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Royle, Anthony

    Cooke, Robert

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Jopling, Michael

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Cordle, John

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Scott. Nicholas

    Costain, A. P.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Sharples, Richard

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kimball, Marcus

    Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

    Crawley, Aidan

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Crouch, David

    Lambton, Viscount

    Smith, John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stainton, Keith

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Dance, James

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Teeling, Sir William

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Loveys, W. H.

    Temple, John M.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lubbock, Eric

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Doughty, Charles

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Tilney, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Eden, Sir John

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Elliott, R. W (N 'c'te-upon-Tyne. N.)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Walker, Peter (Worcester)

    Farr, John

    Marten, Neil

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maude, Angus

    Wall, Patrick

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Walters, Dennis

    Fortescue, Tim

    Mawby, Ray

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Glover, Sir Dougles

    Monro, Hector

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    More, Jasper

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Gower, Raymond

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Worsley, Marcus

    Grant, Anthony

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wylie, N. R.

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Murton, Oscar

    Younger, Hn. George

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Grieve, Percy

    Neave, Airey

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Eyre and Mr. Kitson.

    Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a point concerning the incapacity of the House of Commons to deal with marginal notes. It is one thing to be confronted with a Bill which does violence to common sense, but it is quite unnecessary to add to this by doing violence to the English language and introducing horrible words
    1340
    like "penalisation". There are perfectly good alternative words such as "penalty for" or "punishment for". I do not mind which words are used, but for the Government to launch this horrible word upon us is adding insult to injury.
    May we have your guidance as to what powers those of us who still value the language have to amend marginal notes

    1341
    which contain such atrocious words as this?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman answered his point of order in the first words which he used, when he spoke about "the incapacity of the House" to amend marginal notes. Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks about the word "penalisation" in the marginal note—and I express no comment on that—he cannot amend it. It is not part of the Bill.

    Clause 39.—(SERVICE OF NOTICES, ETC.)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 31, line 44, at the end to insert:
    'and the provisions of the Recorded Delivery Service Act, 1962 shall apply to this Act as if the said section 56 as hereby revived had remained continuously in force from 24th November, 1949'.
    I make no excuse for moving this apparently innocent and, one might almost say, trivial Amendment because, when the matter was raised in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power said, in answering a point put by me:
    "The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which has created a great deal of discussion within the steel industry and among many people for some time past, and it is a very valid point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 14th December, 1966; C. 2342.]
    The point, quite simply, is that the Recorded Delivery Service Act was passed after the 1949 Iron and Steel Act, substantial portions of which are revived by the Bill, had been declared to cease to have effect. Section 1(1,a) of the 1953 Act says:
    "The Iron and Steel Act, 1949, shall cease to have effect…"
    The Recorded Delivery Service Act provided that it should apply only to Acts passed before 1962, and the question therefore arises—and this is a legal point of some nicety—whether the 1949 Act has remained in force despite what was said in the 1953 Iron and Steel Act, or whether the provisions in the Keeling Schedule 4 to the Bill represent new legislation. If they do represent new legislation, then the Recorded Delivery Service Act cannot apply to them and the words in the Amendment are necessary if this method of serving notices is to be applied. If the words of the Act
    1342
    are, as a matter of law, taken to have remained in force ever since 1949, the Recorded Delivery Service Act will automatically apply.
    This, therefore, is a peg on which one can hang the broad question: does the 1949 Act, these musty old bones, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peyton —[Laughter.]—I am sorry—
    Mr. Peyton: I certainly represent myself, but I represent a few other people as well.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: From my reading of the paper this morning, I gather that my hon. Friend represents a few rainbow coloured rats as well.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a marginal comment.
    Mr. Jenkin: And the House has no power to deal with those matters, Sir.
    The point is quite short. Do the provisions of the 1949 Act as revived in this Bill represent new legislation or are they old legislation which has remained in force, though of no effect, and is merely revived by the Bill? If the latter, the Amendment will not be necessary. If the former, the Amendment becomes desirable and should be accepted.
    Mr. Marsh: Having heard the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) quote words which I used in the early hours of one morning in Committee, I shall never again be guilty of irony at any hour of the day or night.
    The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the belief that there may well be a legal inaccuracy in the Bill, and it is right that he should, as a lawyer, raise it. As he says, the question of interpretation is whether Section 56 of the 1949 Act is an enactment to which Section 2(1,a) of the Recorded Delivery Service Act, 1962, applies. Section 2(1,a) provides that
    "this Act applies to the following enactments, that is to say,—

    (a) the provisions of any Act…passed before or in the same Session as this Act".

    In other words, the question to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention is whether Section 56 of the 1949 Act is to be regarded for the purposes of the Recorded Delivery Service Act, 1962, as having been passed before that Act.

    1343
    This matter has raised considerable public interest and concern, and we have given careful examination to it. Obviously, if one is presenting a Bill and it is found to be technically inaccurate, this is a good time to stop and do something about it. However, the point was carefully considered by the Parliamentary draftsman during the preparation of the Bill, and it was considered also in Standing Committee D. The Parliamentary draftsman was entirely satisfied then that Section 56 of the 1949 Act was a provision falling within Section 2(1,a) of the Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962. Since then, we have had the position examined again and, despite the arguments advanced in Committee, he has found nothing to cause him to change his view.
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pressing the point because it is in the interests of both sides that legislation shall be technically and legally accurate. But I am advised that for the purposes of Section 56 of the 1949 Act Recorded Delivery will be an alternative to registered letter.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As a gesture of magnanimity to the right hon. Gentleman, we thank him for what he said, and, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 41.—(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)
    Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 102, in page 32, line 19, after 'order' to insert:
    'and the power conferred by section 44(4) of the 1949 Act to make rules'.
    This is purely a technical Amendment, the effect of which is to require that rules governing the procedure of the Arbitration Tribunal are made by Statutory Instrument subject to the negative Resolution procedure in the normal way.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 32, line 23, after 'section' to insert:
    '(Publication by Corporation of lists of prices and conditions of sale and section'.
    1344
    This also is purely a technical Amendment, as is the next to follow, Amendment No. 104.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 104, in page 32, line 31, after '4', insert:
    'and that conferred by the said section (Publication by Corporation of lists of prices and conditions of sale)'.—[Mr. Marsh.]
    Schedule 2.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DISSOLUTION OF IRON AND STEEL BOARD.)
    Dr. Bray: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 37, line 25, at the end to insert:
    ( ) The last foregoing sub-paragraph shall not entitle the Corporation to see or take copies of anything in a document being a thing which, in the opinion of the Minister relates only to, or cannot conveniently be severed from a thing which relates only to, the affairs of a company referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, not being a company engaged in doing anything as a common service for iron and steel producers or any group thereof.
    This Amendment meets a point made in Committee. Hon. Members opposite were concerned that documents held by the Iron and Streel Board relating solely to companies which were not coming into public ownership should not be shown to the Corporation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 3.—(AMENDMENTS OF REVIVED PROVISIONS OF 1949 ACT.)
    Dr. Bray: I beg to move Amendment No. 106, in page 38, line 15, at the end to insert:
    Section 1(7) For the words from 'disclose the nature of his interest' to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words 'declare the nature of his interest—

    (a) if he is not the chairman, to the chairman;

    (b) if he is the chairman, to the Minister;

    (c) in any case, at a meeting of the Corporation;

    and the member shall not take any part after making a declaration in pursuance of any of the foregoing paragraphs in any deliberation or decision of the Corporation with respect to that contract; and a declaration made in pursuance of paragraph (c) above shall be recorded in the minutes of the Corporation'.

    1345
    The question was raised in Committee whether, if a member of the Corporation found he had an interest in a contract and there was not a meeting of the Corporation for some time, embarrassment might arise for himself or the Corporation. This Amendment requires him to declare his interest to the appropriate person, so that there will be no embarrassment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 142, in page 46, line 49, after 'omitted' to insert:
    'in the definition of "net revenue" there shall be added at the end the words "and including, in relation to any publicly-owned company and any subsidiary thereof and any company in which the Corporation has acquired or holds any interest, an estimate of the cost of any services provided by the Corporation to any such company according to the extent to which it shall have made use of the same "'.
    As usual, although this Amendment relates to Schedule 3, it has the effect of altering Schedule 4 as well. We seek to ensure that, when subsidiary companies of the Corporation have the benefit of common services supplied by the Corporation or other subsidiary companies of the Corporation, a fair charge is made to those companies for the cost of the services. We have in mind not only the common services existing at present—B.I.S.C. or B.I.S.R.A., methods of dealing with scrap, and so on—but also the fact that one of the stated objectives of this nationalisation Measure is the reorganisadon of the industry, from which there may well flow further common services which will be available to subsidiary companies, not only those directly in the iron and steel industry but others owned by the Corporation and making use of them. One thinks of the common use of computers, for example, which may well develop over the years.
    There is a genuine fear strongly felt in the private sector that there will be inadequate costing on the part of some subsidiaries of the Corporation if there is no appropriate charge made in all cases for the use of these common services.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Gentleman says, this is a small Amendment, but quite an important one. With respect, though, it is based on a probable misreading of the Bill. The only places where the operative phrase "net
    1346
    revenue" is used in the Bill are in the provisos to Sections 18(2) and 19(2,a) of the 1949 Act revived. This is one of the problems of adopting this method of drafting the Bill. These sections are about dividends paid in respect of the period before vesting date when the Corporation does not hold any interest in companies, and there are, therefore, no circumstances in which the Amendment would apply.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 47, line 12, to leave out from '3' to the end of line 13 and to insert:
    'after the word "shall", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "if the number of the members thereof exceeds ten, be such number, not being less than five, as the Corporation may from time to time determine and, if the number of the members thereof does not exceed ten"'.
    This Amendment, with which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, it might be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, follows from the Amendment, made by the Committee which reduces the membership of the Corporation from 10 to 7. Under the 1949 Act as revived and amended by the Bill, provision was made that a quorum for the Corporation should be not less than five members. This was fixed when the maximum size of the Corporation could vary between 10 and 16, and it is obviously too high a figure if the membership comes near the new minimum of seven. On the other hand, it would be appropriate if the membership was more than 10.
    The Amendment provides that if the membership, including the Chairman, does not exceed 10, the quorum shall be at a level fixed by the Corporation at not less than 3, but if the membership exceeds 10 the quorum shall be at a level fixed by the Corporation at not less than 5.
    Mr. Speaker: I take it that the House has no objection to considering with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 125 and 126?
    Mr. Marsh: No.
    Mr. Barber: No.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Marsh: I beg to move, Amendment No. 113, in page 47, line 43, after 'stock', to insert:
    'after the word, in sub-paragraph (2), "before" there shall be inserted the words "the day on which the last payment of interest fell to be made before" and for the words, in subparagraph (3), from "be added" onwards there shall be substituted the words "at the expense of the Corporation be distributed by them amongst the persons to whom payments were made under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph so that each of them receives in the aggregate the amount which he would have received had the amount paid as aforesaid been equal to the amount so found to have accrued"'
    This Amendment is rather more complicated. It deals purely with the rights of the holders of securities to be vested where the value of their securities is not settled by vesting day. It is purely to protect the position both on behalf of the banks who issue stocks, and those who deal with them.
    Mr. Lubbock: Schedule 3 is practically incomprehensible. One must have the previous Act before one, and it is also necessary to have an amended copy of it. I do not think that many people looking through this Act will be able to understand it in the form in which it is presented to us. We have enough difficulty as it is. Will there be any document in which the amended provisions of the previous Act will be set out with such Amendments as are put into it by this Schedule?
    Mr. Marsh: There is no specific intention to do that at the moment, but I shall, of course, look at it as a proposition. I think that on the whole most of the issues will be relatively easily understood by the sort of people who will have to deal with them. Whether a sort of "child's guide"—and I do not use the phrase offensively—should be produced is something which I am willing to consider.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 4.—(FORM IN WHICH PROVISIONS OF 1949 ACT HAVE EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THIS ACT.)
    Mr. Speaker: I am advised by the Opposition that they have no objection, if the Government have no objection, to taking all the Amendments to Schedule 4 together.
    Mr. Marsh indicated assent.
    Mr. Barber: With respect, Mr. Speaker, all the Amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member must trust the Chair.
    Amendments made: No. 114, in page 50, line 4, leave out from 'knowledge' to end of line 9 and insert:
    'declare the nature of his interest—

    (a) if he is not the chairman, to the chairman;

    (b) if he is the chairman, to the Minister;

    (c) in any case, at a meeting of the Corporation;

    and the member shall not take any part after making a declaration in pursuance of any of the foregoing paragraphs in any deliberation or decision of the Corporation with respect to that contract; and a declaration made in pursuance of paragraph (c) above shall be recorded in the minutes of the Corporation'.
    No. 121, in page 71, line 46, after 'section', insert:
    being machinery for operation at national level or works level or a level falling between those levels and appearing to the Corporation to be appropriate'.
    No. 122, in page 72, line 3, after 'maintenance', insert:
    'for operation at any such level as aforesaid'.
    No. 123, in page 72, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert:

    (b) the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting efficiency, in any respect, in the carrying on by the Corporation and by publicly-owned companies of their activities, and the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed by the Corporation and by publicly-owned companies.

    No. 124, in page 72, line 18, at end insert:
    (2A) Where it falls to the Corporation or a publicly-owned company to participate in the operation of machinery established under this section, and the operation involves discussion of a subject by other persons participating therein, the Corporation or, as the case may be, the publicly-owned company shall make available to those persons, at a reasonable time before the discussion is to take place, such information in their possession relating to the subject as, after consultation with those persons, appears to the Corporation or, as the case may be, publicly-owned company to be necessary to enable those persons to participate effectively in the discussion.
    No. 125, in page 83, line 7, after 'shall', insert:
    'if the number of the members thereof exceeds ten,'.
    No. 126, in line 9, after 'determine', insert:
    'and, if the number of the members thereof does not exceed ten, be such number, not being less than three, as the Corporation may from time to time determine'.
    No. 127, in page 85, line 14, after 'before', insert:
    'the day on which the last payment of interest fell to be made before'.
    No. 128, line 23, leave out from shall ' to end of line 25 and insert:
    'at the expense of the Corporation be distributed by them amongst the persons to whom payments were made under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph so that each of them receives in the aggregate the amount which he would have received had the amount paid as aforesaid been equal to the amount so found to have accrued'.— (Mr. Marsh.)
    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL

    Clause 1.—(APPOINTMENT AND TENURE OF OFFICE.)
    7.8 p.m.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from "of" to "and" in line 17 and to insert:
    "Addresses from both Houses of Parliament".
    I must first apologise to the House if I propose the Amendment in a cursory form, but I am sure that the House will forgive me when it hears that I do so owing to the temporary illness of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) who has managed to come here, but has not felt able to move the Amendment himself.
    The object of the Amendment is to place the Parliamentary Commissioner in the same position as other officers whose appointments are determined only on Parliamentary Resolution, and to substitute for the Resolution of one House in this respect, the Resolution of both Houses. I shall come back to the analogies and precedents in a moment, but there is one reason for moving the Amendment which I am sure will appeal to the House, or at least so much of it as hears the Amendment proposed.
    When the Amendment was proposed in Committee, the Committee divided, and the result of the Division was a tie. The result of the Division therefore remained to be determined by the Chairman of the Committee, who, in the mysterious and almost religious way in which Chairmen have to cast their votes, decided to vote against the Amendment in order to achieve a debate on the Floor of the House on the Report stage, as the HANSARD Committee proceedings duly records. Those who proposed the Amendment in Committee would be lacking in duty if they did not give effect to the wish of the Chairman of the Committee when he exercised his right in the event of a tie on a Division.

    1351
    Even more intriguing than that incident—which was in accord with precedent and rule—was the fact that the Minister, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, strongly supported the Audit in a carefully worded and well thought out speech. Having most seriously considered the matter, he voted for the Amendment in the Division which resulted in a tie. I feel sure that the Financial Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is seated beside him, will stick to their guns and not allow themselves to be frightened out of their manly support of what the Financial Secretary believed to be right in Committee.
    I will be disappointed if the Financial Secretary, the Leader of the House, and perhaps other occupants of the Front Bench opposite do not join us in the Lobby if the Amendment is taken to a Division. It would be a pleasure, although an unusual one, to welcome them to that Lobby, but we will extend that welcome because we know that they are men of principle and courage and are not afraid of some of their own supporters, who are never wearied of restraining them. As they have expressed their opinions on the Amendment—certainly the Financial Secretary, who voted for it —I trust that his colleagues will not abandon him now or compel him to vote against his opinions.
    The basis of the Amendment is, first, that the precedents are with us. The Parliamentary Commissioner is not a Commissioner of one House but a "Parliamentary Commissioner". He is, by definition to be wholly independent of the Executive. Ex hypothesi in this House the Executive have certain disciplinary powers over the working majority—which we recognise, although they are seldom acknowledged in the legal terminology of our legislation.
    If the Parliamentary Commissioner is, in truth and in fact, to be independent of the Executive, his appointment should be not merely subject to the will of the majority of this House but to the will of Parliament. This has been done not only with the judges of the High Court, who must deal with the rights of the subject—as has the Parliamentary Commissioner—but also, I understand, with
    1352
    the Comptroller and Auditor General. He provides a very close analogy with the Parliamentary Commissioner, not merely by reason of the personality of the first appointment but because throughout, in their advocacy of this scheme, the Government have founded their case and argument on this precise analogy with the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    I should have thought that the precedent and analogy of the Comptroller and Auditor General applies, a fortiori, to the proposed Parliamentary Commissioner, since the former is precisely concerned with the Government expenditure of money from the Consolidated Fund, to see that it is not misused. This is and always has been, not merely by convention but by immemorial convention, the prerogative of this House, to the exclusion of another place. Yet when the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is considered and the circumstances in which this appointment is to be terminated are defined by Act of Parliament, then I understand that a Resolution of both Houses is necessary.
    It is not surprising, therefore, that the Financial Secretary, when he came to reply to this Amendment in Committee, found the arguments compelling to such an extent that he felt bound to rehearse them in some detail in the case of the first, the independence of the Executive, and summarily in the case of the second, of the analogies.
    Let us consider the arguments advanced on the other side. They were, I suggest, based on a misunderstanding of the situation. The first was adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who said that the Parliamentary Commissioner was, in effect, an official designed to deal with complaints made by the constituents of hon. Members and made through hon. Members. That is an error. He is a person who will deal with complaints of maladministration, whether or not they are from constituents. It is true that they must be channelled through an hon. Member, but they do not need to come from that hon. Member's constituents. Nor does the possession, of a vote in a constituency, or a vote at all, constitute a right to make representations to an hon. Member. As I understand

    1353
    it, there is nothing to prevent a peer, an alien, a bankrupt or a convict from making representations to an hon. Member from quite outside the constituency in which he lives. It is the prerogative of any hon. Member, as I understand it, to approach the Government in this respect.
    It is, therefore, wholly wrong to suggest that the Parliamentary Commissioner is the servant of individual hon. Members to give effect to the complaints of their individual constituents. To suggest that is misunderstanding the position. Moreover, although it is not apparent from the terms of the Bill, I have understood from the debates on the subject that although, in the first instance, the Bill provides that the complaints should be channelled through hon. Members—perhaps to sift them, give priority and not to take away the prerogative of the House —it was supposed in the end that, as in other countries, the complaints should come direct from members of the public. At any rate, this is something which may or may not be the case, but the first of the two arguments must be valid.
    The second reason adduced came, perhaps not surprisingly, from the ingenious mind of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman). He was so zealous of the reputation of another place and its good relations with this House that he was afraid that, if it were provided that a Resolution of both Houses was necessary before the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner could be terminated, this might give rise to some dissension between the two Houses. From the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that was welcome news indeed. He was so zealous for the good relations between the two Houses that he was anxious at all costs to prevent the possibility of dissension between them—a laudable objective.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Since we are dealing with a quite serious matter, perhaps we should get the point clear. What is basic to the Parliamentary Commissioner doing a satisfactory job is that he should not be dragged into any kind of political controversy. If one found the continuance of his occupation in his post dependent on a Resolution of this House and also on a Resolution of another place, one must envisage
    1354
    the possibility of the two Houses coming to different conclusions. If that occurred, there would be a contest between the two and it is of the nature of such a contest that it would be conducted in political terms. The impartiality and objectiveness of the Parliamentary Commissioner would obviously be called in question in such a debate, and, if there were finally disagreement between the two Houses, the continuance of his Department might depend on a constitutional conflict between the two Houses, which we would all wish to avoid. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions ought not to be speeches.
    Mr. Hogg: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman found it necessary to remind the House that this is a serious subject. Of course it is. But I found his argument rather less well-phrased than I did when I read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings, and less convincing because he did not frame it as well.
    Tht answer—which, had the hon. Gentleman not intervened, I would have given him at once, and which I hasten to provide—is that it would be a convincing argument if we did not have 250 years' experience of the appointment of judges who are, for this purpose, in exactly the same position, and if we did not have nearly 100 years' experience of the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is certainly in this position. If it is said that for the serious and proper discharge of such offices they should be detached from party politics and from all suspicions of controversy, then this applies to the judges preeminently, but it has never been found in 250 years' experience that it was necessary to confine the termination of the appointment of the judges to one House to the exclusion of the other.
    Indeed, I believe that if it were desired to do so, the judges themselves would think that an important safeguard by which they could be kept out of public controversy had been removed from their appointments. The same thing would be true of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Thus, I do not know why the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne should be offended when I reminded him that, admirable as his desire is to prevent dissension between the two Houses, his

    1355
    fears ought to have been founded on two and a half centuries of experience of analogous appointments.
    Mr. David Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a completely fallacious analogy when he compares the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner with that of the judges. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner is an officer who receives complaints through hon. Members, which is completely different from the position of the judges.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not following my argument. I had already dealt with that point, which was a bad one when he made it in Committee. I was engaged on answering the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. The analogy is exact and I was taking the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne seriously, as he asked me to do, and that hon. Gentleman was trying to say that, because of the need for the Parliamentary Commissioner to operate in a detached atmosphere, it was important not to involve him in any possible dispute between the two Houses.
    That applies exactly to the judges. As I said at the outset, it is true that under the Bill the Parliamentary Commissioner is a servant of this House, as is the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, we have passed from that, because I had answered that point and I will not weary the House with repetition, even though the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North does not seem to have appreciated the relevance of what I was saying.
    The only other argument put forward was adduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who said that it would be unfortunate should the Parliamentary Commissioner turn out to be a peer and then take part in a debate in the House of Lords on a Resolution demanding his dismissal. I have dealt with all the other arguments, and if that is the only one left—and it must be, having, dealt with all the others—in opposition to the Amendment, then I do not take it very seriously, in spite of the danger of incurring the wrath of the
    1356
    hon. Member for Nelson and Colne because, as everyone knows, public servants who are in another place—and there are a few—are restrained by strict rules from taking part in debates relating to their offices. The possibility of the Parliamentary Commissioner being a peer in the foreseeable future—at any rate, under this Administration—depends entirely on hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that would depend on whether they advised Her Majesty to issue a patent of peerage to the present incumbent. Therefore, that is not a serious point.
    This is a wholly reasonable Amendment. It commended itself to the Financial Secretary in Committee and if the Government have any sense of the preponderance of argument they will now accept it.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I have no observations to make in this discussion, but I was about to interrupt the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who said that we did not follow his argument. He was right about that. Knowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure that he would not wish to leave uncorrected his unwitting discourtesy to Her Majesty in his concluding words. He said that the question of who was a peer was a matter for hon. Members on this side. It is a matter entirely of the Royal Prerogative exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. Nobody else can interfere.
    Mr. Hogg: I thought I had made it plain that I was talking about the possibility of the present incumbent becoming a peer. I take it that this could not be done without the approval of the Government. I certainly was guilty of no discourtesy to the occupant of the Throne, nor would I have been in order had I been so.
    Mr. Weitzman: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has stated so clearly the arguments which I put in Committee that I do not want to repeat them. The only answer that he has given to them is that he says he does not agree with them. I do agree with them. They are perfectly sound arguments. For that reason, the Amendment should be rejected.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): The right hon. and

    1357
    learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) moved his Amendment with his usual good humour but said one thing which was misleading to my hon. Friends when he said that the name "Parliamentary Commissioner" should imply that the Commissioner is not for the House of Commons but is for Parliament as a whole. I was not on the Standing Committee but I have read the report of the debates. If that was the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gained by reading the debate—and I have read it, the same as he has done—he has misread it, because great attention was paid to removing any idea that the Parliamentary Commissioner was in this sense responsible to both Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. Hogg: I made it plain that I accepted that. I said that the Parliamentary Commissioner was in the same position from that point of view as the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    Mr. Crossman: That is the nub of my argument. He is, in fact, in the same position as the Comptroller and Auditor General. We use the word "Parliamentary" in the title in the same way as we use the title "Member of Parliament". It is important to emphasise, although this is not a very profound point, that the Parliamentary Commissioner is a House of Commons person who works only for Members of Parliament.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked gaily about that being a mere formality, but to us on this side it is an important part of the Bill that the Parliamentary Commissioner is an instrument of investigation which can be brought into action only through a Member of Parliament. As we shall be discussing later, we are to have a Select Committee of our own which will operate and conduct his proceedings. It should be clear that the use of the word "Parliamentary" means no more than when we use the title "Member of Parliament" about ourselves. He is a servant of the House of Commons.
    It would have been possible to give the Parliamentary Commissioner wider responsibility and to say that any Member of the House of Lords would have the right to ask the Parliamentary Cornmissioner to work for him. That was discussed at an early stage in Committee
    1358
    but the suggestion was dropped. It was made clear by the Government that we were not prepared to consider any kind of Amendment which would widen the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner into his being somebody who could serve not only Members of Parliament, but also members of the House of Lords.
    On balance, I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was quite right in saying that simply because of the analogy of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to make assurance double sure, it is better to have the same routine. I doubt whether it will be used much in this Parliament by the recall of the two Houses but we want to put the Parliamentary Commission in the strictest sense comparable with the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is what the Clause does. It states that he shall be as independent as the Comptroller and Auditor General. He will be that kind of person.
    Because we want to emphasise that his office will be as dignified and independent and, at the same time, linked equally with the House of Commons, we should have the same procedure in this case. Therefore, solely for that reason, I advise that we should accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3.—(ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.)
    7.30 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, to leave out 'and servants'.
    Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time the following Amendments which deal with the same subject matter:
    No. 2: in Clause 5, page 3, line 21, after 'by', insert 'or on behalf of'.
    No. 15: in Clause 11, page 7, line 20, leave out 'his officers and his servants' and insert 'and his officers'.
    No. 17: in Clause 12, page 8, line 22, at end insert '"officer" includes employee'.
    Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the Opposition have no objection. So be it.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. This is a group of four drafting

    1359
    Amendments to meet a point which was raised by a number of hon. Members in Committee. We are agreed that we intend "officers" where it is used in the Bill to include servants or agents. We believe that this is already the effect of the original word, but to make assurance doubly sure we have put down these Amendments.
    The logical way to approach the Amendments is to go first to the fourth Amendment, to the Interpretation Clause, and to say that "officer" shall include "employee". We have used that term rather than "servant" or "agent" because "servant" is not a very apt word to use in relation to people in the employment of the Crown. We wanted a word to cover persons employed, whatever their capacity, who might not be office holders. I have in mind messengers, for example.
    Logically we go next to the first and third of the four Amendments, which, in consequence, take out the word "servants" where it appears. The second Amendment, to insert "or on behalf of" in Clause 5, is designed to meet the point of agency which was discussed in Committee. We did not use the word "agent" as such because it has a wide range of meanings. Our intention is that there shall be included within the scope of the investigation of the Commissioner not only the acts of officers themselves and of Departments, but of anyone who is acting as a statutory agent of the Department: that is to say, a person or body which carries out a function on behalf of the Department by virtue of a statutory delegation and which is not simply doing the work by a purely contractual arrangement.
    Two examples were mentioned in Committee. One was the Bank of England when operating on behalf of the Treasury in exchange control work. Another was local authorities, which act in an agency capacity on behalf of the Minister of Transport in doing trunk road work. Other examples which have been drawn to my attention are veterinary surgeons in private practice appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to act as local veterinary inspectors and the motoring associations, the A.A. and the R.A.C., when exercising certain functions concerning international driving certificates. This
    1360
    is not an exhaustive list. I give it merely by way of example. I think that the Amendments now meet all the points which were raised in Committee.
    Mr. William Roots: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for the Amendments. There was considerable discussion of these matters in Committee, when a number of my hon. Friends were unhappy about the wording of the various Clauses. I hope and believe that the Amendments meet the points which we raised in Committee and I do not oppose them.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Before we part with the Amendment, I should like the Financial Secretary to say whether those who serve in the Commissioner's Department will be his employees or civil servants or what else will be their precise status. With whom will they be in contract? It appears even from this Amendment that the intention is that they should be the employees of the Commissioner. It is of some importance to know what their position will be.
    Mr. MacDermot: I speak from recollection and subject to correction, but the right answer, I think, is that technically they will be civil servants. This is a matter which is of importance from the viewpoint of their pensions. They will be appointed, I think, by means of the certificate procedure which governs their pensions. They will be entirely under the direction of the Parliamentary Commissioner, who is an officer of this House, and it will be only in that formal sense that they will in any sense be civil servants.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(DEPARTMENTS AND AUTHORITIES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)
    Sir John Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 5, at the end to insert:
    ( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section and of section 5 of this Act the Commissioner shall have power to carry out any investigations directed by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament and shall report thereon to both Houses as soon as his investigation has been completed.
    Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, it will be convenient to take also

    1361
    Amendment No. 39, in Clause 5, page 4, line 4, at end insert:
    'unless the Minister responsible for the department or other authority concerned authorises such an investigation to be made'.
    Sir J Hobson: The object of the Amendment is to give a useful power to the Parliamentary Commissioner to be employed for special purposes and on special occasions which, we may find unhappily, are outside the scope of the Bill.
    We know all too well that there are many occasions when public interest and the pressure of Parliamentary opinion demands an inquiry. The only existing safeguard is in the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, which is a very heavy-handed hammer and which, the recent excellent Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Justice Salmon has said, should be used only on the rarest occasions and on occasions of great public anxiety and interest.
    Between, therefore, the provisions of the Bill as it stands and the circumstances in which the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, may be employed, there is a very wide gap. It is, therefore, in view of the new Parliamentary Commissioner, with his knowledge and experience of investigations, with his staff and with his ability to conduct investigations of this sort, that we have thought it right to give a little latitude to the Bill.
    The Government constantly say that we must proceed cautiously and that the Commissioner cannot be allowed to jump into the wide seas of investigation but must be narrowly constricted. They have succeeded fairly successfully in ensuring that he does very little indeed. One could have drawn a Bill in the form that it gave a great number of powers which are to be operated only when the Government have introduced an Order in Council, but they have not even done that. They have given no elasticity of any kind to allow wider or more varied investigations than within the strict and narrow limits of the Bill.
    On occasion, therefore, perhaps not very regularly, the Amendment might well provide a useful provision. It is drafted on the basis that such a special inquiry should be conducted only on the basis of a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This is on the basis that legislation is being altered.
    1362
    It is right when there is delegated legislation, when there are extended powers which have not already been given by Parliament, that there should be affirmative Resolutions of both Houses. It also means in substance that the Commissioner would never be able to undertake a special inquiry under the Clause, unless the Government were in agreement to it, because we proceed on the basis that the Government will be in control of at least one House for the time being. Therefore, there cannot be an inquiry under the 1921 Act unless the Government agree to it. It is equally obvious that under this proposal it would be impossible, without the consent of the Government, for such a special inquiry to be embarked upon by the Ombudsman.
    Moreover, there are those who think that the Commissioner may be the beginning of a very important development in our Constitution and in the protection of citizens. It might well be useful to have this opportunity to experiment in the extension of his powers. The proposal gives some flexibility, left under the control of the Government. I therefore commend it to the House.
    Mr. Hale: I confess that at first sight this seems to me to be an excellent proposal. I should like to hear the Government's reply, because I do not claim any expertise in this matter. I can appreciate that one of the arguments which may be advanced against the proposal is that the Commissioner will not have the powers to summon witnesses, and so on, which a tribunal of inquiry may have. That itself is an excellent recommendation. There have been many cases where an inquiry by a trusted individual on documents, with a report that no further inquiry was necessary, might have been a very great improvement upon some of the tragedies that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act has perpetrated.
    The House is familiar with the history of that Act. It was conceived by this House in a moment of hystetria on an allegation which was not true. It was conceived after someone had demanded an inquiry into alleged misdoings in the sale of munitions, which proved extremely attractive material for the Press but in respect of which no single reliable witness ever came forward. If I remember, the

    1363
    Member of the House who raised the matter, and who was an old friend of mine, did not really attempt effectively to pursue the matter once the allegation had been made.
    I do not want to recall the whole history of these things. The House is one of the worst tribunals in the world when it gets excited. I was involved—not personally, but professionally involved as legal adviser—in the Lynskey Tribunal affecting Mr. Belcher. I thought that the whole thing was a tragedy. No one felt that any added purity to public life was produced as a result of it. A lot of ridiculous and wholly unsupported allegations were made. I took some part in suppressing many of these things by extremely improper means, which I will not now detail to the House.
    The House itself suffered when allegations were made against one of its Members, which were investigated by a High Court judge, who conducted a searching inquiry, who published a detailed report, and who played in that respect the sort of part the Commissioner could play.
    If the Commissioner wins public confidence and respect, as I expect and hope he will, though that I think the Bill will saddle him with real difficulties which will not make it easy for him to proceed with speed and always completely to the public satisfaction, it might almost become an accepted practice that, by resolution of both Houses, where allegations are made which involve the decencies of public life, such an official could immediately investigate. He might say almost immediately, "This is another of those hysterical allegations which are made". He might say, "I must inquire further". He might issue a report which I concede might necessitate a further inquiry—under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, or a judicial inquiry, or by process of the courts. That would be inevitable.
    7.45 p.m.
    My only doubt about the Amendment is whether it is necessary, because I should have thought that, if both Houses passed a resolution of this kind, they could in that resolution give the power and the directions. I am not sure of that. On that matter the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is much more likely to be right than I am. It may be that we should
    1364
    have to pass a special, tiny, formal Act of Parliament in each case. If this proposal were embodied in the Bill, it would save that procedure. It would save the rather unsavoury type of debate that might arise on that procedure.
    I hope that we shall never need to use these powers. I can visualise occasions on which the leader of any Government might be very grateful to have them. I am tempted to say this, and I say it with reticence and reserve, because I never took part in any speeches or talk about one of the last incidents which worried the House for some time. If the distinguished Prime Minister who was in office at the time that certain complaints were made against security, which I think in the end were proved to be manifestly untrue but in respect of which there was some gossip, some associations, some events, had had the power to say, "We will move a Resolution of both Houses that the Parliamentary Commissioner, who enjoys our confidence, shall look into this and tell us whether it might go further", one of the most unpleasant events in our Parliamentary lives—there are several of us who are ashamed of this event—might have been avoided.
    What I have reason to say emphatically is that the Tribunals of Inquiry Act is hopelessly and wickedly unsatisfactory. There is always something to be said for the private, quiet, preliminary inquiry by a person trusted and independent. There is nothing to be said for the perversion of the rules of evidence and justice over these issues, for roving questions on subjects one has never been warned about, for witnesses being brought whom one has been promised will not be brought, for a man's wife being fetched from her kitchen to testify against her husband who was a distinguished Minister of the Crown. Yes, indeed; that happened to John Belcher after I had been personally promised that it would not be done. Mrs. Belcher was fetched from 20 miles away and shoved hysterical into the box. Of course I must not pursue this. Of course I must not say that her mental health was affected. Of course I must not say that, and I will not. But some of us remember. These were evil things that were happening.
    I have three times been involved in inquiries under the Tribunals of Inquiry

    1365
    Act. I can say now after all these years that one of them seemed to be a put-up job from the start. However, our trusted method; of procedure should not be lightly abandoned. That is why I commend to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the suggestion that we might take advantage of this opportunity to do something which imposes no obligation upon anyone but which provides an additional, and I think fruitful, method of dealing with exceptional problems, and dealing with them in a manner which might give confidence to the public.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Bill gives the Commissioner very wide powers. They are much wider than the powers which can be given by a Minister without special assistance from this House for the purpose of inquiring into some matter. But they are not so wide as the powers given under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I think that there is plenty of room for an inquiry to be held where the inquirer has greater powers than what might be called the ordinary run of the mill powers, but less formidable powers than those given under the Act. Under the Bill, the Commissioner is prevented, by Clause 3, from inquiring into matters within the responsibility of certain Departments and, by Clause 5, from inquiring into certain matters within those other Departments which he can look into. What this Amendment does is to allow both houses of Parliament together by Resolution to remove the particular restrictions and so enable the Parliamentary Commissioner to hold just such a half-way house inquiry. I think that that would be very helpful, and I support the Amendment warmly.
    Let it be said that the Amendment is only permissive. It will enable Parliament to permit this to occur, but it will not in any sense compel the Commissioner to take action. It does not put the Commissioner into an awkward position.
    The Amendment standing in my name goes less far than that proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). My Amendment proposes to make an addition to subsection (3) of Clause 5, which provides:
    "Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, the Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation under this Act in respect
    1366
    of any such action or matter as is described in Schedule 3 to this Act."
    Schedule 3 set out a number of matters which it is generally agreed ought not to be inquired into.
    What my Amendment suggests is that we should add to that the words:
    "unless the Minister responsible for the Department or other authority concerned authorises such an investigation to be made".
    In other words, there may be cases where the Minister himself would be glad to use the machinery of the Commissioner. Under the Bill as it is now drafted, he is prevented from doing so. This will enable him, in effect, to waive the objection laid down by the Bill. It seems to me to be a moderate and sensible step which could easily be taken.
    My Amendment is not an alternative to that moved by my right hon. and learned Friend. It is in addition to it. Therefore, I support both Amendments, and I hope that both may be made to the Bill.
    Mr. MacDermot: The official Opposition Amendment is similar to one which we discussed in Committee. It was agreed then that we were discussing it against the background of the very rigid provisions which existed then and still exist in relation to Schedule 3, because, as the Bill stands at the moment, the exclusions in Schedule 3 are absolute exclusions, and it would only be possible for the Parliamentary Commissioner to examine cases falling within any of the categories in Schedule 3 if another Act of Parliament were passed enabling him to do that.
    As hon. Members will be aware, in response to requests made in Committee, we have put down an Amendment that we shall reach in a few moments in which we propose to take power to amend Schedule 3 by Order in Council. If it is found both desirable and practicable to extend the scope of the Commissioner's powers to include any of the matters at present excluded by Schedule 3, we will be able to do that by the Order in Council procedure, subject to a Resolution of this House. I respectfully suggest that that alters the need for any Amendment such as is now proposed.
    The official Opposition Amendment is an extremely far-reaching one. I am not sure whether hon. Members opposite

    1367
    realise just how far-reaching it is. Under its terms, one would introduce a concept which is alien to the whole structure of the Bill, because it would mean that there would be no limit to the kinds of matters which could be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner by a Resolution of both Houses. For example, it is not limited to topics where the action to be investigated is action on behalf of the Crown. At the moment, that limitation is found in Clause 5, and it is excluded by the words of the Amendment. It would be possible for the House to order the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate actions of local authorities, of nationalised industries and, indeed, of private companies—
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Not order—permit.
    Mr. MacDermot: Effectively, it would be order. If there was a Resolution of both Houses that the Commissioner should carry out an investigation into some particular topic, from a practical point of view I suggest that this would have the effect of negating his discretion as to whether or not he investigated that matter. It would operate as an instruction to the Commissioner, and it could be an instruction to investigate the affairs of a private company. That would be a wide-ranging tribunal procedure with a vengeance.
    Schedule 2 would be completely overridden. There would not be the limitation which is provided by the requirement that there should be a complaint by an individual or a corporate body, which is the origin of the proceedings. That would go. It would not need a complaint by an individual and it would not even require that someone should be complaining of an injustice. Even if he were complaining of an injustice, it would not require his consent to the proceedings. That is an important safeguard which we have at the moment. The requirement that the target of the Commissioner's investigation should be maladministration would go, because that is in Clause 5. He could investigate anything, including discretionary decisions. He would be able to review decisions of the courts; he could be called upon to act as a court of appeal against the courts, because that limitation
    1368
    is in Clause 5. The time limits would go, together with all the exceptions in Schedule 3.
    Perhaps I have said enough to show that this is an extraordinarily widely drafted Amendment and, in effect, would be a recipe for a universal inquisitorial procedure.
    Whatever may be the faults of our present tribunals of inquiry system, we should not set up a kind of second class inquiries procedure without proper safeguards built into it. We have now the Report of the Salmon Committee, which has made important recommendations about the Tribunals and Inquiries Act procedure, but nothing of that kind is contained in the Amendment.
    I pass over the fact that it talks in terms of a resolution of both Houses, when I think that we are agreed that, operatively, the Parliamentary Commissioner will be an officer working to this House.
    The Amendment which we are discussing with—
    Mr. Hale: I remember that one of the arguments which impressed us on the Police Commission when talking about a national force was that if a Government behaved so badly in relation to a national force as people said in talking about the S.S., that Government could do anything, anyhow. If a Government and a House of Lords were so bad and so grossly incompetent that both Houses passed Addresses demanding an investigation into something which was manifestly improper under circumstances which were highly undesirable, by that time the Commissioner probably would have been hanging from a lamp post, if lamp posts still existed. Surely that is advancing into the realms of romance.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged for what I take to be the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). For a moment, earlier, I thought that he was urging that we should accept the Opposition Amendment.
    If I might turn to the second Amendment which we are discussing, that of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), it does not go nearly as far and is limited to giving an additional power to the Commissioner to

    1369
    investigate what might be called Schedule 3 cases—the cases in the excluded categories—if the Minister of the Department or other authority concerned consents to the investigation. On the face of it, this is an attractive proposal, because one can say, "What possible harm is there in it? It would be a useful additional power. The Minister might welcome this kind of investigation procedure, and he need never consent to it unless he wants to."
    The answer is that one must realise what in practice would be the result of passing a provision of this kind. It would mean that every dissatisfied complainant —we all know from our experience as Members of Parliament that there are many persistent dissatisfied complainants, and sometimes their persistence varies in inverse ratio to our own judgment of the substance of their complaints—would know of the existence of the power and would be pressing his Member of Parliament to raise the matter in the House, saying, "Why do you not press the Minister to consent to this investigation?" No doubt it would be raised in the House at Question time and in Adjournment debates.
    Often the Minister's reason for not wanting an investigation would be the knowledge that, if he allowed a particular case to be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, he would be opening the door to a whole new procedure of a vast number of similar complaints being referred as well. As we know, it is our practice in Government in these matters to try and establish precedents and to operate on principle in accordance with precedent. I suggest that what is being argued as the very special case would not in practice be the very special case. Each one would open the door to a new class of cases.
    If this is what we want, the answer is that our new Amendment will provide the means to permit it. If it is found in practice that there is no reason why a certain class of Schedule 3 cases should not be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner, we will be able to make an Order, assuming that the House sees fit to pass the Amendment which we shall be considering shortly. For those reasons, I would advise the House not to accept either of the Amendments.
    Mr. Antony Buck: I find the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments totally unconvincing. It was not perhaps a great surprise that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) succeeded in demolishing them totally by his intervention. It came as a surprise that the hon. Gentleman succeeded in doing so in two short sentences. It sometimes takes a little longer for him to deploy arguments which are so devastating in character.
    The fact is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown a wild mistrust of Parliament. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that Parliament will behave in such an irresponsible way as to call upon the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate matters inappropriate to him? That view would seem to be something of an insult to Parliament. It is absurd that the Parliamentary Commissioner cannot be called upon by Parliament to investigate anything that Parliament wants.
    In setting up the Parliamentary Commissioner, we are indulging in a great experiment. We shall be seeing the utility of this new office and will no doubt see it expand and become more and more useful. It may well be that, in due course, Parliament may think it appropriate to entrust the Parliamentary Commissioner with the investigation of a local government matter. Why not? It might be entirely appropriate that, after he has dug himself in with the full range of activities flowing from the Bill, Parliament may well wish to experiment and allow him, perhaps commission him, specifically to investigate some local government scandal or allegation of maladministration. It is this sort of matter we would wish to have referred to him.
    Mr. Weitzman: Why is it necessary to have the Amendment? If Parliament passes a Resolution asking the Parliamentary Commissioner to do something, why is it necessary to put it in an Act? Surely it could be done adequately by Resolution.
    Mr. Buck: This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. My view is that if the Parliamentary Commissioner were to undertake matters other than those in the Bill, he would

    1371
    be acting ultra vires. What would be required would be a short Act of Parliament. As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not be authorised merely by Resolution of both Houses to undertake an investigation outside the ambit of the Bill. But perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary will indicate whether that view of the law is correct or not rather than that I should have the invidious task of correcting the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) on a point of law.
    As I understand it, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not investigate a matter which was merely put forward by Resolution of both Houses. It could not be done except by Act of Parliament. It is absurd that Parliament cannot refer a specific matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner. As the office evolves and grows, as we see the way it becomes an effective instrument for good, why should we not, as Members of Parliament, by Resolution of both Houses, refer matters to the Parliamentary Commissioner which are outside the ambit of the Schedule—for example, a specific experiment such as a local government scandal which would be entirely appropriate? This is full justification of the Amendment.
    Mr. Weitzman: I do not know how it can be suggested that, if a Resolution passed by Parliament authorises the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate a matter, it can possibly be said to be ultra vires.
    Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have listened carefully and am persuaded by the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary on what is clearly a constitutional matter. There is clearly a case for reforming the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, but that is a different matter from what we are discussing in this Bill and the Amendment. It seems wrong that Parliament should introduce by sidewind under another Measure a power as wide as that.
    The answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is surely that Parliament must be very careful not to give power for things to be done in its name, because one never knows what the future complexion of Parliament may be.
    1372
    I agree that it is hardly likely that a future Parliament would resort to measures which none of us here would approve of but nevertheless it remains our duty to make its task very hard if such a Parliament came about. It is surely a constitutional principle of this House that we give no more power than is necessary for the immediate purpose in mind. It is a wise principle and the Financial Secretary is absolutely right.
    Sir J. Hobson: In reply to hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) I would say that surely a Resolution of both Houses could not give to the Parliamentary Commissioner any powers beyond what he has and therefore he could not, without the Bill, use any of the powers to be provided by the Bill merely because a Resolution of both Houses asked him to do so. That is surely plain law. Unless this is expressly put in an Amendment like this, the powers available under Clauses 7, 8 and 9—provisions about defamation and other matters which are of great importance—would not be attracted to an inquiry which was called for without the provisions of the Bill —an inquiry that the Parliamentary Commissioner conducted at the behest of Parliament.
    Mr. Weitzman: Supposing Parliament passed a Resolution that the Parliamentary Commissioner be asked to investigate a certain matter and gave him certain powers with regard to that inquiry. How could that be ultra vires?
    Sir J. Hobson: It is a new doctrine that, by Resolution of both Houses, we can confer power on anyone. I am sure that is wrong. I do not want to delay the House. We have had a good debate. I agree in principle with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—that one wants to be careful about what powers one is conferring and I wish that the Government would take that much more to heart and themselves be more careful about the delegated legislation that they are pouring through the House at present with very little Parliamentary control.
    The point about the Amendment is that it would strengthen possible Parliamentary control. It would not be possible to have an inquiry by the Parliamentary

    1373
    Commissioner under the Amendment without a Resolution of both Houses. It is all very well the Financial Secretary saying, "What a terrible thing—there is no complainant". The two Houses of Parliament are the complainants. What better complainants are there? He says that it is terrible that there are no limits on what the Parliamentary Commissioner would be enabled to inquire into. But I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). We have to rely a little on the sense of the two Houses.
    One cannot imagine them investigating the proceedings of a court of law and seeing whether an appeal decision to the court ought to be reversed. This is a tightly drawn Bill with great restrictions on the matters to be investigated. While I acknowledge the slight additional

    Division No. 250.]

    AYES

    [8.15 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Neave, Airey

    Alason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Grieve, Percy

    Nott, John

    Awdry, Daniel

    Gurden, Harold

    Onslow, Cranley

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Batsford, Brian

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hawkins, Paul

    Percival, Ian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pym, Francis

    Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Holland, Philip

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hordern, Peter

    Roots, William

    Campbell, Gordon

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Clark, Henry

    Hunt, John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Clegg, Walter

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Sharples, Richard

    Cooke, Robert

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Cordle, John

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Stainton, Keith

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Dance, James

    Longden, Gilbert

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Mawby, Ray

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fortescue, Tim

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

    Miscamphell, Norman

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Monro, Hector

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    More, Jasper

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gower, Raymond

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wylie N. R.

    Grant, Anthony

    Murton, Oscar

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Eyre and Mr. Kitson.

    NOES

    Albu, Austell

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Anderson, Donald

    Buchan, Norman

    Dalyell, Tam

    Archer, Peter

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Cant, R. B.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Dewar, Donald

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Dobson, Ray

    Bence, Cyril

    Chapman, Donald

    Doig, Peter

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Coe, Denis

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Binns, John

    Coleman, Donald

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Blackburn, F.

    Concannon, J. D.

    Eadie, Alex

    Boardman, H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Booth, Albert

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Boyden, James

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ellis, John

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Ensor, David

    Brooks, Edwin

    Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

    loosening that there will be by the ability to remove things from the categories in Schedule 3, Schedule 3 is not the only restriction that the Bill imposes on the capacity of the Parliamentary Commissioner to conduct inquiries.
    We cannot foresee what circumstances may appear and what real necessity there may be to employ the great skill, knowledge and experience and staff of the Parliamentary Commissioner in having an inquiry which both Houses think is necessary. I am content to rely on both Houses and therefore I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 170.

    Finch, Harold

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Rankin, John

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McBride, Neil

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Foley, Maurice

    McCann, John

    Richard, Ivor

    Ford, Ben

    MacDermot, Niall

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Forrester, John

    McGuire, Michael

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'tow, E.)

    Gordon Walter, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Rose, Paul

    Gregory, Arnold

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Hamiton, James (Bothwell)

    Mapp, Charles

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Harper, Joseph

    Marquand, David

    Silkin Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Haseldine, Norman

    Mason, Roy

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Henig, Stanley

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Slater, Joseph

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Mellish, Robert

    Small, William

    Hilton, W. S.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Snow, Julian

    Hooley, Frank

    Miltchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Molloy, William

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Moyle, Roland

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Murray, Albert

    Swingler, Stephen

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Neal, Harold

    Symonds, J. B.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Howie, W.

    Ogden, Eric

    Tinn, James

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Tuck, Raphael

    Hunter, Adam

    Oram, Albert E.

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hynd, John

    Orme, Stanley

    Varley, Eric G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wainwright Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Wellbeloved, James

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pardoe, John

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Park, Trevor

    Whitaker, Ben

    Lawson, George

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Winnick, David

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Pentland, Norman

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Luard, Evan

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Lubbock, Eric

    Probert, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Randall, Harry

    Mr. Whitlock and

    Mr Walter Harrison.

    Clause 5.—(MATTERS SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)
    Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 21 after 'by' to insert 'or on behalf of'.
    No. 3, in line 35 to leave out 'save at his discretion'.—[Mr. MacDermot]
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 43 at the end to insert:
    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.
    The Amendment arises from Amendments which were carried in Committee, in respect of which I then had a somewhat rough passage. The Amendments which were moved by two of my hon. Friends went rather far and gave the Parliamentary Commissioner the right to intervene at his discretion in cases where there was recourse either to a tribunal or a court of law. As originally drafted, the Bill excluded from the Parliamentary
    1376
    Commissioner's powers all cases where there was a recourse to a tribunal and cases where there was recourse to proceedings in a court of law, unless he was satisfied that in the circumstances it was not reasonable to expect the complainant to take, or have taken, proceedings in a court of law.
    As the Bill now stands as a result of the Amendment in Committee, its effect is that the Parliamentary Commissioner could even investigate a case which had been heard and decided upon in a court of law and could in effect be called upon to act as a court of appeal following a decision of a properly constituted court of the land. I do not think that that position can possibly be accepted.
    Therefore, we have put down this Amendment, which restores to the Commissioner the guidance which the Bill originally gave him about the kind of case in which it was proper for him to intervene, that is to say, that if he was satisfied that in the particular case it was not reasonable to except the complainant to have pursued his alternative remedies. But we have accepted the

    1377
    decision of the Committee that this discretion should exist in relation both to tribunals and courts of law.
    I need not weary the House by repeating the argument on why we originally sought to draw that distinction. One of the factors that influenced us was that we were anxious that there should not be any occasion for a clash between the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Council on Tribunals. I undertook to the Committee to consult the Secretary to the Council as to whether it would see any objection to this extension. We are informed that the Council would have no objection to the provision, and we are accordingly putting forward the Amendment in this way.
    The result will be that where a person has an alternative remedy, whether to a tribunal or a court of law, that will not be an absolute bar to his case being investigated by the Commissioner, who will have a discretion in such cases as to whether or not to investigate. If he thinks that the case should more properly be dealt with by the alternative proceedings he will say so and, in the exercise of his discretion, will refuse to investigate. But if he is satisfied that there are good reasons why the complainant should not have recourse to those other remedies he will then be able to act.
    I hope that this will meet the substance of the argument put forward in Committee.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Weitzman: I should first like to express my disappointment with the Government's decision to delete these words. We had a very full discussion about this matter in Committee when no one accepted the position taken up by the Financial Secretary. Even when there was not full agreement with the Amendment then proposed, there was dissatisfaction with his attitude.
    My hon. and learned Friend has endeavoured to meet the objection by this Amendment. There is some advance, but it is not enough. The provision gives the Parliamentary Commisioner the right to intervene in a case when he is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the person aggrieved to resort or have resorted to a tribunal, court of appeal, or whatever it may be. There is no right where the matter has already
    1378
    been dealt with by a tribunal or court. It is only when the person concerned could have resorted to it, or might resort to it.
    This seriously circumscribes the Parliamentary Commissioner's power and I would have thought that it was very much simpler to have said that where there were particular circumstances, it was right for the Parliamentary Commissioner to intervene. I fully agree that it would be wrong to constitute the Commissioner as an appeal court from the tribunal or court which hears the case, but there must be circumstances—and they were cited in Committee—when there are borderline cases when, in special circumstances, it could be left to the good sense of the Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with the matter.
    I would have been more satisfied if my hon. and learned Friend's interpretation of the powers of the Commissioner had been right. I quoted a certain case to him and he replied:
    "But he tells the Committee…that on the matters that he has considered, the case is so strong that he feels sure there must have been some error somewhere. All I can say to him is that if he were able to convince the Parliamentary Commissioner of the fact, if he could establish a prima facie case to the same extent, that this was a case which cried out for investigation—then, within his discretion, the Parliamentary Commissioner would be able to look into the matter and investigate it".
    He went on to say:
    "There is a possible administrative complaint which legitimately he could investigate. Is it being said, 'I am not complaining about the decision of the tribunal. What I am complaining about is that the administrative action of the Department was at fault, in failing to lay before the tribunal properly the information which it, the Department, had and which it alone had'. If that is what the allegation is, then, as I have said, that is a matter which can be investigated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 8th November, 1966; c. 160–2.]
    I said that I would be very much more satisfied if I felt that the Financial Secretary's interpretation was correct, but as I read the words I think that in such a case the Commissioner would be bound to say that he was debarred under Clause 5(2,a), because it was an action in which the person aggrieved had a right of appeal to a tribunal or court. It is doubtful whether that interpretation is right.
    Surely the proper thing is to try to clarify the position by inserting words

    1379
    which make it clear that the view which my hon. and learned Friend is putting forward is right. I can only express the hope that between now and discussion in another place he will look at the matter again to see whether he cannot clarify the provision by some further words.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I rise only to ask the Financial Secretary one question. I am glad that he has proposed the Amendment for I think that it is an improvement. It says that the Commissioner may conduct an investigation
    "if satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable…"
    I take that to mean that the Parliamentary Commissioner alone is the judge of what is or is not reasonable in such circumstances and that he may not be challenged on that and will not normall be expected even to give a reason. I think that that is most desirable, but I should like to have it officially stated.
    Mr. Hale: I am grateful for the crumbs which fall from the master's table, even if rarely. This Amendment is a great improvement and I congratulate the Financial Secretary on introducing it. I gather that he knows—and I gather that this is the view of the House—that it excludes from consideration any grievance arising before the date on which the Bill comes into force. I read it like that. I wish that my hon. and learned Friend would say who is a person who
    "has or had a remedy"
    which he has failed to pursue. The trouble is that a grievance may arise the day before. This may be a matter for experts. I never call myself a draftsman.
    The second problem which arises is: what is an unexhausted remedy, how does one know what remedies one has and what remedies are within reasonable power? I know that the question of the former Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is excluded from the Measure, and there are powerful reasons for it, because, if it were not, the Commissioner would have about 50,000 more cases to deal with almost at once, some genuine, some far from genuine.
    May I quote a purely legal example from the Ministry to exemplify the point. It concerns a case reported in The Times ten days before Christmas on a decision
    1380
    of the House of Lords. The House of Lords, by a majority, affirmed the decision arrived at by the Court of Appeal, by a majority, which reversed the Divisional Court, which supported the Commissioner of National Insurance in deciding that the decision of the medical appeal tribunal supporting the medical referee and disagreeing on a point of fact with a previous decision of a commissioner which reversed the previous medical referee in agreeing with the medical report. This was an appeal to the House of Lords by the Minister which was lost. I could ask a few questions about the cost of it when I have a little time free.
    Who could have advised that lady about Mr. William Charles Crocker, who is very famous for some of his admirable legislative activities, that the applicant had not exhausted his right until he had been before four medical tribunals, two independent commissioners, two judges of the Divisional Court, three judges in the Court of Appeal and five judges in the House of Lords on an issue under an Act by which I was told, on the day I made my maiden speech, that we were cutting all the lawyers out and not having any more nonsense about going to the county court and getting a decision?
    I sit once a month in Oldham. People still think that I am a solicitor. I keep telling them I am not and the Chancery Division have said that I am not for Income Tax reasons. Day by day problems are postulated as to what are people's rights. When I get in a mess, I send them to the citizens advice bureau. Who knows the answer to these questions under this highly complex régime? How is the Commissioner always to be able to get a determination?
    If I have the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker's eye on Friday, I hope to develop a wholly different matter. Recently, on an urgent point of Customs duty, a man was asked for £30 by Thomas Cook and Son Limited in respect of a wedding gift valued at £29 10s. I approached the Board of Trade which said "There is tax involved. You should approach the Treasury". So I approached both of them and the Treasury said that it would look into the matter. I put down a Question about the tax and the Treasury

    1381
    said that it was looking into it. At the precise moment when it looked as though somebody might say something, a brilliant genius in the Civil Service said, "But you used Thomas Cook. They are a nationalised industry. This is a matter for the Ministry of Transport". My constituent, the nicest of men, was very grateful in the end—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am having some difficulty in relating what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Amendment. Would he kindly indicate how it relates to the Amendment?
    Mr. Hale: I do not think I should like to reply to that challenge precisely or to go into a dissertation in the strict terms of the Amendment. I thought that I was rendering a service to the House by delivering two speeches at once and as briefly as I could. I shall not therefore rise again when anything is called for discussion which will make these observations relevant.
    Mr. MacDermot: With the leave of the House to speak again, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), I think in his disappointment at the form of this Amendment, was really repeating a point of view which he expressed in Committee, which is that he would really like the Parliamentary Commissioner have power to act as a court of appeal from tribunals. With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I do not think this would be a workable system. We have a system of tribunals, and in some cases machinery of appeal from them, and there are supervisory powers and supervisory courts, and also we have the Council on Tribunals, from another point of view, supervising the work of those tribunals. I think, therefore, that there would be no end to this system if a disappointed complainant could at any time have yet a further stage and have his complaint heard and investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
    His second question, on which he quoted some words of mine in Committee, related to a much narrower point. We were imagining the situation where there was before a tribunal a case in which the facts were peculiarly in the knowledge of the Department, as frequently they will be, where the case had
    1382
    been heard and decided by the tribunal against the complainant, perfectly properly decided on evidence presented, and then information came to light to indicate, for example, that the Department in error had omitted to lay before the tribunal some very relevant material—some medical reports, whatever it might be.
    I do not want to lay down the law for all cases, but certainly I think that in some such cases there would be no way to get a case reopened by the tribunal; it would not be a matter which could be the subject of an appeal to the tribunal itself. If that is so then it would not be excluded by the words of Clause 5(2,a), and accordingly the point that I was making was that in those circumstances that failure of the Department to lay the proper facts before the tribunal could be the subject of complaint on an administrative act by the Department. It would be a wholly exceptional case. This is a very fine point, but I was seeking to try to draw a distinction between the Commissioner acting as an appellate tribunal from the court itself or from the tribunal itself and as investigating some administrative failure in the steps leading up to the actual proceedings by the court.
    As to the other two points on which I was asked to give an answer, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked whether I would confirm that the wording of the Amendment means that it would be solely for the Parliamentary Commissioner to decide whether in the circumstances it was reasonable for the complainant not to have pursued the alternative remedy. I do give that assurance: it would be entirely within his own discretion to decide.
    Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) suggested that the Commissioner would only be investigating matters arising out of cases occurring after the date of the passing of the Bill. I think that if he looks at Clause 6(3) he will see that that is not the case.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert:
    (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Commissioner to

    1383
    review by way of appeal any decison taken by a government department or other authority in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority.
    This Amendment is largely a drafting matter and seeks to overcome the criticism that was made both on Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill as drafted does nowhere in terms exclude the discretionary decisions from the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner's powers. We take the view that this is inherent in the word "maladministration" itself, but as there was obviously wide feeling among hon. Members on both sides that it was desirable to make this explicit, we propose adding these words which, we believe, will achieve that object. Perhaps the only point on the wording on which I might comment is the use of the words "by way of appeal". We have said that
    "Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising or requiring the Commissioner to review by way of appeal any decision"—
    in effect, in exercise of a discretionary power. The reason why we put that in is that we do not want this Amendment to be limiting. As was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Lord President in moving the Second Reading, there are matters in relation to discretionary decisions which will be within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I can sum it up by calling them matters where the complaint is that the proper administrative procedures were not followed before the stage was reached when the discretionary decision had to be taken. We do not wish to exclude that. The intention of the Amendment and, I believe, its effect is that the Parliamentary Commissioner will be free to investigate all matters of administration —everything, in effect, except a discretionary decision itself.
    8.45 p.m.
    Sir J. Hobson: This is a very important Amendment, although the Financial Secretary may say that it is only a drafting one. It goes to the very root of what the Bill is intended to do. By its wording, as I read it and as the courts and the Commissioner would be bound to read it, if we remove all right of investigation into any matter concerning a Government Department or other authority which is exercising a discretion vested in that
    1384
    Department or authority, we impose a very heavy limitation upon the capacity of the Parliamentary Commissioner to protect the citizen and give him a remedy when a really silly decision has been made.
    The Financial Secretary has said that one can look at the procedural background to the discretionary decision, but it is a little difficult—as anyone who has ever administered a Department knows—to distinguish between what is the administrative background and what is a discretion. There is a discretionary element in the way in which any Department is run.
    Everyone knows that within each Department there are certain rules and regulations about what is done or not done, and the Minister decides that he will or will not in particular circumstances seek the advice of some other authority. Of course, that is a discretionary decision on his part and, to some extent, a policy decision on the way in which he will run his Department. Therefore, the whole of the preliminary machinery which any Government Department goes through before the actual final decision is taken is, of itself, part of the exercise of administrative discretions by the Minister.
    I have always thought that this provision in the Clause would emasculate the Bill. It will leave practically no circumstances in which a Minister will not be able to say, "I took that decision because I had the choice of consulting A or consulting a large class of people. I took that decision and, as a matter of fact, in this Department we never bother to ask the other Departments about questions of this sort. This is something that I have decided, and you, the ombudsman, are not entitled to investigate the matter."
    The words, "in the exercise of a discretion" could not be wider. A discretion means no more than liberty of choice. It means, according to the Oxford Dictionary, "The liberty of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits". It also means something which is "to be settled or disposed of by the wish of" the individual.
    Pretty well everything within a Department is disposed of on the wish of the Minister and on each and every occasion when the ombudsman asks him, "Why

    1385
    did not you do this, that or the other", or asks why this or that step was not taken, the answer will be, "Because we decided that in cases of this sort we would not do that".
    I have always thought that the key to the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner was the extent to which he could look at the administrative decisions of a Department, both the internal administrative decisions and the decisions affecting the citizen. Unless he can do both, the citizen will be wholly deprived of any benefit of an investigation by the ombudsman. Only where the Minister is under an obligation to take a particular decision and, therefore, has no discretion himself will the ombudsman be able to complain. In any other case, if there is a choice of courses of action, the Minister can say, "This was my decision. You cannot look at that and there can be no investigation by you, the ombudsman".
    I appreciate the Government's desire to shield all Ministers and civil servants from the investigation of the ombudsman in any circumstances where it can be said that the Minister had any responsibility. I quite see that that is the basis upon which the Government are proceeding, but the result of their taking that attitude is that the ombudsman will be almost totally excluded from the files of Government Departments. The result of that attitude and this Amendment is that the Government are now seen to be thinking that discretion is the better part of valour and they are running clean away from the ombudsman.
    Mr. Daniel Awdry: This is not a drafting Amendment. It goes to the heart of the whole Bill. I recall the words of the Lord President of the Council on Second Reading:
    "The knowledge that the Parliamentary Commissioner is there, eager to get to work; the knowledge that he can act only in response to complaints from Members and is, therefore, in the strictest sense a servant of the House; the knowledge that when he acts he will be able to go wider and further than anyone except the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral—this knowledge should surely put heart into those back benchers who feel they count for not much more than Lobby fodder."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 43.]
    Those words certainly put some heart into this back bencher. Foolishly, I sup-B,
    1386
    pose, we imagined that this brave new Bill would be a step forward and would give us greater power to control the Executive. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman how powerful Ministers can be. He was a very powerful Minister himself. He knows also—he has said it often—how weak Parliament is and how largely ineffective are our powers as Members to undertake detailed criticism.
    I had hoped, as many hon. Members on both sides did, that the Bill would be a real step forward to alter that situation. It is nothing of the kind. Moreover, if this Amendment, described so innocently as a drafting Amendment, is accepted, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Bill.
    On this Amendment, Parliament has to take a very important decision, a decision fundamental to the whole Bill. Are we to take the narrow view and restrict the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner to cases in which the Minister has no discretion at all? Is that the object? It seems to be the Government's view now, although it was not their view at the time of the Standing Committee. In Committee, the Financial Secretary said:
    "We do not want to exclude from his activities anything which relates to discretionary decisions, because we may get what are true faults of administration, leading up to a discretionary decision, with the result that when the decision was taken it was affected by a fault of administration. In other words, one can fault the manner in which it was taken."
    It is worth reading the whole passage because this is such an important matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on:
    "The hon. Member for Kensington, South, in moving his Amendment, gave some instances of the kind of thing he had in mind —that the person who made the decision had not all the relevant material before him, that some relevant evidence which ought to have been drawn to his attention was not, by the neglect or obtuseness of someone who ought to have laid that evidence before him, or that he based his decision on irrelevant matter, on irrelevant evidence. Now, if this can be shown, if this is the complaint, this is a matter to be investigated, as we conceive it, by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, because he is looking to see whether the proper administrative process has been carried Out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee 1st November, 1966; c. 69.]

    1387
    That was the argument put forward by the Financial Secretary, and it seemed a wholly good one at the time. Now he is putting forward a very much narrower interpretation of the powers. The alternative is to take the bolder course and rely simply on the exclusion provided in subsections (2,a) and (b) of this Clause.
    The cases which usually come to hon. Members concern planning decisions, because these are the ones which worry people most. Their livelihoods are affected by them, and yet these are the very cases in which we are utterly powerless to assist. A citizen applies for planning permission to build, say, a bungalow. The R.D.C. turns down his application. He appeals, and waits for five months. His appeal is then heard, and he waits another five months before the gets the result of the appeal. He learns that his appeal has been turned down, and he comes to see us. We then write to the Minister. I have done this on many occasions, as I expect most hon. Members have. We write to the Minister asking him to reconsider the appeal, and we get the same reply each time, "There is no power to look at the matter again".
    Rightly or wrongly the constituent feels that he has a genuine grievance, that somewhere along the line there has been a failure by the Minister to act in a proper way. It may be said that in those circumstances he has recourse to the courts, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said during the debate, this is a very cumbersome and expensive procedure, and these appeals do not go to the courts except in very few instances. The people affected live with their bitterness for the rest of their lives.
    The more I think about the Financial Secretary's speech, the more I am puzzled about the Government's attitude to this matter, and I am certain that many people outside the House will be equally puzzled. I feel that if the Amendment is accepted it will undermine the very purpose of the Bill, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is an enthusiastic—
    Mr. MacDermot: All that the Amendment seeks to do is to make explicit the interpretation of the Bill which my right hon. Friend gave during the Second Reading debate and which was, inciden-
    1388
    tally, supported by a number of hon. Gentleman opposite in Committee. Indeed, I think that it puts into other words an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth).
    Mr. Awdry: I realise that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes that view, but that was not the view taken by my right hon. Friend. The Amendment 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…"
    It says that nothing in this Section authorises the Commissioner to look at any decision.
    Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman must read the whole Amendment. It refers to
    "any decision…taken in the exercise of a discretion vested in that department or authority".
    Mr. Awdry: That does not weaken my point. I am certain that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House, and perhaps on the other side, too, who are anxious about this. We will emasculate the Bill if we take away from the Parliamentary Commissioner the right to look at the exercise of a discretion by a Minister.
    Mr. Crossman: It is not true to say that we would emasculate the Bill, because in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman referred I made it clear that discretionary decisions, as the Whyatt Committee recommended, were excluded from the Bill. I said:
    "Discretionary decision, properly exercised, which the complainant dislikes but cannot fault the manner in which it was taken, is excluded by the Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 51.]
    9.0 p.m.
    After considerable discussion on this matter—in which we considered whether or not this was the proper thing to do —we made it clear, in Committee and on Second Reading, that this was the interpretation. The Amendment does not alter anything but merely makes unambiguous what we candidly told hon. Members was the way we should deal with the issue. We have accepted the Whyatt Report, which suggested that it should be dealt with in this way, and it is, therefore, unfair to say that it is

    1389
    being written into the Bill by this small Amendment.
    Mr. Awdry: I am a solicitor and not a lawyer. The difficulty is that although this matter may have been fully argued and discussed—with undertakings and assurances given in Committee and on Second Reading—we must deal with the Bill as it appears before us. I may have got the wrong end of the argument, but as I see it—not as a lawyer—the Amendment does not have the purpose which the Financial Secretary is arguing it does have. I do not believe that it is a drafting Amendment. I have come to that decision having studied it carefully and I trust, therefore, that the Government will not pursue this Amendment.
    Mr. Hooson: I am opposed to the Amendment on narrower grounds than those adduced by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). Whenever the ombudsman starts investigating a case, the Amendment could be immediately used as a shield by civil servants, who could say, "We are exercising our discretion", and many weeks would go by while the matter is being considered. In his intervention, the Leader of the House referred to his speech in Committee. I did not find the position enhanced by what he said about a discretionary decision being properly arrived at.
    Mr. Crossman: "Exercised", not "arrived at".
    Mr. Hooson: Suppose it is exercised on wrong or erroneous grounds. We are concerned here with administrative injustice or injustice suffered as a result of maladministration. One of the things the ombudsman should be entitled to investigate is a discretionary decision vested in a Department which has been arrived at through a completely erroneous process. Suppose a decision has been arrived at through a mistake which could be put right. Is the ombudsman to be excluded from considering that?
    Mr. MacDermot: He is the Parliamentary Commissioner and not an ombudsman.
    Mr. Hooson: I am using the term which is in common use. In all the discussions before the Bill was introduced he was known as an ombudsman.
    1390
    In any case, it would be wrong for the Government to persist with the Amendment in the face of such criticism. If the Financial Secretary considers that the Amendment is not really necessary, it should be left out because the view is widely held that it will circumscribe the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner and provide a shield behind which civil servants will be able to hide for many weeks.
    Sir Lionel Heald: I regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee. However, I have taken a great interest in the subject for a long time and, despite the attitude of the Leader of the House, I apprehend that we are entitled to discuss this matter at such length as we think proper.
    I cannot help being worried about this matter because we have for nearly two years been pointing out that the ambit of jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner should be seriously considered. In September 1964, a statement was published in the New Stateman by the present Foreign Secretary in which he said what it was intended that the Parliamentary Commissioner would be able to investigate. He stated:
    "The Commissioner will he concerned with those episodes where all the authorities have behaved correctly, yet the result is absurd or unjust."
    That right hon. Gentleman, for whom we have the greatest respect and who takes a keen interest in the rights of the individual, did not talk about "maladministration". He did not use any ambiguous language of that kind. He made it clear that if there had been an injustice it would be the job of the Labour Government's great Parliamentary Commissioner to right it. Since then we have been plunging in this morass of the expression "maladministration".
    Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the whole of the proceedings and I have found that there was intense discussion about the word "maladministration" and its repercussions in relation to discretion. We have been left in a great state of uncertainty. I share the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) that the Amendment—although I accept that it is not intended to do this—might

    1391
    have the effect, and I believe it will, of creating a danger that the whole value of this system will be vitiated.
    Almost every decision that causes real hardship is a decision taken in the exercise of a Ministerial discretion. Sooner or later, somebody will have to decide whether or not it comes within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I do not think it could go to the courts and we may assume that the Parliamentary Commissioner will act in a judicial capacity. There is grave danger that, if we accept an Amendment like this, the Parliamentary Commissioner will take a narrow view of his duties. In reading what was said in Committee, I was astonished to find that on more than one occasion the reason given for not accepting Amendments was that to do so would overburden the Parliamentary Commissioner. In the case, for example, of the National Health Service, the reason given was not that he ought to be able to consider it, but that he would be overburdened. This great public benefit produced by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to enable grievances to be alleviated is to be withheld because there would be too many complaints. What an astonishing thing. The Amendment, as I read it, would cut that down very much indeed.
    Time after time one hears the argument that the Minister in question had discretion and had the facts before him. Nobody suggests that he acted dishonestly or had improper evidence. He made his decision in the exercise of his discretion. The boundary of maladministration is a very difficult one to determine.
    I feel great anxiety about the acceptance of the Amendment. I acquit the right hon. Gentleman of the intention to do what I have suggested might happen, but surely this is the moment when we should be entitled to deal with these things.
    I end where I began. I was a little disturbed to find that when somebody got up and presented a logical and new argument the right hon. Gentleman said that this was all decided on Second Reading. These things are not decided on Second Reading. They are decided when the House of Commons finally expresses its opinion, and that is this evening.
    Mr. Harold Gurden: The Amendment proves the critics right when they said that in the production of the Bill the Government had gone back on their promise to the electorate. Clearly, the Amendment shows that from the very beginning the Government had no intention of giving us an effective Parliamentary Commissioner, the Ombudsman as he was called at the General Election by the Government.
    Almost the whole of the Bill will be pretty useless if the Amendment is passed. It would be interesting to know what the Parliamentary Commissioner would think about this and about his job if the Amendment is passed, because he will be in an awkward position to be told by any Minister or Ministry that they were only exercising their discretion—and that would apply not only to a Government Department, but to any authority. Those are the words of the Amendment. All the criticism which has been levelled from this side tonight will be amply justified if the Amendment is passed.
    I cannot think why the Lord President of the Council puts up the argument that as a defence of the Amendment he has to say, "I told you so". Of course, he told us that this was his intention. We still say, however, that it makes nonsense of the Bill. I hope that the Government will have the decency to withdraw it.
    Mr. Hogg: When I was at my first school, we had a rather jolly schoolboy expression for "swindle". We called it "swiz". A swiz was not something which involved any particular moral turpitude on the part of those who were guilty of the swiz but meant that those who were the victims of the swiz somehow felt with justification that they had been swindled.
    As the House knows from my speech on Second Reading, I have always regarded the ombudsman as a swiz. Now we have arrived at the moment of truth. We were told originally, in a very grandiloquent speech by the Leader of the House, that the ombudsman would deal with maladministration. We have never really been told what maladministration is. It may be that some esoteric ritual inside the Civil Service has not been observed. I do not regard that as maladministration. If Government policy is involved and injustice is suffered thereby.

    1393
    we know that maladministration is not Government policy. If it requires legislation to put it right, that is not maladministration. I told the House on Second Reading that it excluded discretion, and I had the powerful support of the Lord President of the Council. The ghastly fact is that when that is excluded, nothing is left except a swiz. We on this side always knew that the whole thing was a swiz, but that was not spelt into the Bill. It did not write down in so many words in a Schedule, "This is a swiz".
    The Financial Secretary has described the Amendment as a drafting Amendment. Despite what has been said by one of my hon. Friends, I agree that it is a drafting Amendment. The Bill was always drafted to be a swiz, and now it is spelt into the Bill. I shall vote against it.
    Mr. MacDermot: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was a Member of a Government which considered the proposals upon which the Bill is based. They were proposals made in the Whyatt Report published by Justice. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says sotto voce that they were rejected. They were not rejected as being a swiz. Those proposals contained the important principle that the Parliamentary Commissioner should not act as a court of appeal to review every discretionary decision which was made in the course of Government.
    It was realised in those proposals, and the reasons were fully set out, why it would not be a workable system if it was sought to give that power to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that denuded of that power, the Parliamentary Commissioner is a swiz. That was not what his Government said when they rejected the idea. They did not say "We reject this because it would be a waste of time. We reject this because he would be a useless cipher if he did not have

    Division No. 251.]

    AYES

    [9.17 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Boardman, H.

    Cant, R. B.

    Anderson, Donald

    Booth, Albert

    Carmichael, Neil

    Archer, Peter

    Boyden, James

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Coe, Denis

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Brooks, Edwin

    Coleman, Donald

    Bence, Cyril

    Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Binns, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Power to investigate discretionary decisions".
    9.15 p.m.
    The first objection and the first reason given by the Tory Administration for rejecting it was that the setting-up of a Parliamentary Commissioner—it was specifically related to the Justice proposals—would seriously interfere with the prompt and efficient dispatch of public business. In other words, the Conservative Government considered that such powers as we propose in the Bill should be given to the Commissioner would hold up the whole machinery of government. That was their first and major reason for rejecting it. That is the meaningless swiz, apparently. It is remarkable how right hon. and hon. Members opposite change their tune when they go from government into opposition.
    I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for endorsing what I said at the outset, that this is a drafting Amendment. This is purely making clear and explicit that which we have said from the very outset was implicit in the Bill and was the scope of the Bill. A number of hon. Members opposite who have given careful thought to this have taken the same view as we have. I respect the attitude of those who, like the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), take a different view and would like to see the Commissioner act as an appellate court over all discretionary decision. If the Commissioner were to have that power, it would require an enormous addition to his staff for him to be able to review the whole field of discretionary decisions in government. I suggest that that would be unworkable and would bring the whole scheme into disrepute. For these reasons, I urge the House to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 92.

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Pentland, Norman

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Jones, Ht. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Randall, Harry

    Dobson, Ray

    Lawson, George

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Doig, Peter

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle)

    Richard, Ivor

    Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Eadie, Alex

    Luard, Evan

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Ellis, John

    McBride, Neil

    Rose, Paul

    Ensor, David

    McCann, John

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Finch, Harold

    Macdonald, A. H.

    Ryan, John

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McGuire, Michael

    Shore, Peter (Stepney)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Foley, Maurice

    Maclennan, Robert

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John

    Ford, Ben

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Slater, Joseph

    Forrester, John

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Small, William

    Fowler, Gerry

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Snow, Julian

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Mapp, Charles

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Gregory, Arnold

    Marquand, David

    Swingier, Stephen

    Grey, Charles (Durham)

    Mason, Roy

    Symonds, J. B.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Tinn, James

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Harper, Joseph

    Molloy, William

    Varley, Eric G.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Moyle, Roland

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Haseldine, Norman

    Murray, Albert

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Henig, Stanley

    Neal, Harold

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

    Norwood, Christopher

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hilton, W. S.

    Ogden, Eric

    Whitaker, Ben

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    O'Malley, Brian

    Whitlock, William

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Oram, Albert E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Winnick, David

    Howie, W.

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Hunter, Adam

    Park, Trevor

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hynd, John

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Mr. Armstrong and

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pardoe, John

    Batsford Brian

    Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

    Percival, Ian

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Holland, Phillp

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Pym, Francis

    BuchananSmith, Alick (Angus, N&M)

    Hordern, Peter

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hunt, John

    Roots, William

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Clark, Henry

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Clegg, Walter

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Sharples, Richard

    Cooke, Robert

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Cordle, John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Stainton Keith

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kitson, Timothy

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Dance, James

    Longden, Gilbert

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lubbock, Eric

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Fortescue, Tim

    Mawby, Ray

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Glyn, Sir Richard

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gower, Raymond

    Monro, Hector

    Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

    Grant, Anthony

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wylie, N. R.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Murton, Oscar

    Grieve, Percy

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Gurden, Harold

    Neave, Airey

    Mr. Eyre and Mr. More.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Nott, John

    Mr. Crossman: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert:
    1396
    (4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend the said Schedule 3 so as to exclude from the provisions of that Schedule such actions or matters as may be described in the

    1397
    Order; and any statutory instrument made by virtue of this subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    I hope that we shall find that hon. Members opposite, who were so moved and so stirred by their anxieties about the Bill being narrowed and made ineffective, will applaud my efforts in this Amendment to widen its extent, and that we shall have enthusiastic speeches supporting it.
    The Amendment changes the Bill in an important respect. By it, we meet the feeling that, although it was wise in the first instance to have a very precise definition of the Parliamentary Commissioner's sphere of action, if we give him a sharp sword and powerful instrument and are precise about the areas that he should cover, we should also make it possible to extend those areas without a new Bill by including within his powers areas excluded in Schedule 3. That is what the Amendment does. It enables us by a negative Order—a simple Order in Council—to lay it down that either all or any part of the Schedule 3 areas which were excluded shall be included in the Bill.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) was rather hoity-toity at one stage, and suggested that the Government did not want to overburden the Commissioner, talking as though the Commissioner would have no work to do. We shall be interested to see, after one year's work and he reports to a Select Committee about the number of cases that he has dealt with, who is right. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that the Parliamentary Commissioner will not get a long roll of cases.
    We have in Schedule 3 areas in which even the right hon. and learned Gentleman would think that the Parliamentary Commissioner and his subordinates would find a lot of work. For example, these areas include the actions of British consuls. This is one of the areas I would have liked to have covered, for it is one where people sometimes feel that they have been badly treated in going to a consul for help. Another area is in relation to overseas territories, while another covers the health services. We are including these in the Schedule in the sense that they can be covered by Order in
    1398
    Council. Other areas include the Civil Service and the Armed Forces.
    This Amendment means that we shall be able, if we see fit, to cover all these areas by Order in Council. I shall not dilate on this subject for long but I will point out that, in view of what the Opposition said on the last Amendment, they should welcome this one. If by any chance they were right and we have narrowed down unduly the Commissioner's powers to deal with cases under the present proposals, here we are now giving Parliament power to extend the areas of his work.
    9.30 p.m.
    As my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary has reminded us, there has been a remarkable change in the Opposition's attitude. Less than three years ago they were complaining that the whole idea must stop because it was dangerous to sound Government. Now they complain that the Commissioner will have too little work to do. The conversion is welcomed as an encouraging symbol of their support for this concept and their belief, expressed in, I suppose, words of great sincerity, that the Commissioner will have too narrow terms of reference. Now we are giving power to extend the terms of reference by Order in Council so that action can be taken if the Opposition's predictions are fulfilled.
    Mr. Roots: The Leader of the House claims certain credit for the Amendment and certainly one rives him credit for bringing it forward. But it will perhaps be known to the House—as he hinted—that the absence of any such power had caused great concern among the Opposition Members of the Standing Committee. He chose to twit us with, first of all, a disbelief in the principle of the ombudsman and what he might achieve. I see nothing inconsistent in being very suspicious of the ombudsman as a major constitutional remedy because, to use the simple phrase already applied, it was "a swiz." Possibly we may be able to shorten the word ombudsman to swiz, which would be an advantage, I suppose, in many respects.
    But if we are to have an ombudsman, then it is absurd so to limit his powers by exclusion that one turns him not only into the swiz he started off as but into

    1399
    a double swiz upon swiz. Our objective throughout has been that, if we are to have an ombudsman, it is wrong for the purposes of the public that they should be led to believe that they are going to get opportunities or rights through his powers which were not the case.
    I was somewhat amazed to find the Leader of the House suggesting that Schedule 3 was designed to assist the ombudsman in limiting the work he would do. [Laughter.] I gather from the laughter that the House shares the absurdity of that which I had seen. At this time of night, I do not propose to take up a great deal of time. The Amendment gives a glimmer that it may be possible to correct the over-limited ambit of the Commissioner's powers on which both sides of the Committee were thoroughly dissatisfied. To that extent, the Amendment is welcome.
    Mr. Cranley Onslow: If the right hon. Gentleman is so desperate for some praise of the objectives of the Bill, he might have a few words of faint praise from me, but I am not much impressed by the terms of his argument. He has described this as a sharp sword for the Commissioner, but I see no danger, in the present state of the Bill, that the Commissioner will cut himself with it.
    I see the Amendment as an admission on the right hon. Gentleman's part that the powers in the Bill as it stands would scarcely suffice to pull the skin off a rice pudding. It is all very well to say that, at some future date, we may be able to give the public the things they really wanted to see in the Bill. This Amendment is indeed a sensible provision for which I argued in Committee. I said then that we should include such a provision, if the Government were so obstinate as to refuse these powers from the start. I should be interested to know what insuperable objection the right hon. Gentleman sees to bringing in now the actions of British consuls or matters of the Armed Services.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Lord President answered the hon. Member he would be out of order.
    Mr. Onslow: I was merely observing that, the Lord President having tantalised us by declaring that he had certain views. I would be interested to hear them
    1400
    in due course. We shall no doubt have a debate on the matter then. To say that he has put in the Bill the means for Parliament ultimately to make it decent legislation is no commendation of it, but rather a condemnation.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS.)
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 42, after 'Kingdom', to insert:
    or on an installation in a designated area within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 or on a ship registered in the United Kingdom or an aircraft so registered'.
    It may be for the convenience of the House to consider with it Amendment No. 8.
    Mr. Speaker: It is always as well if the occupant of the Chair knows beforehand, because he must protect the interests of the minority. If the Opposition have no objection, I have no objection. So be it.
    Mr. MacDermot: These Amendments are to meet points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee. They are designed to ensure that the Parliamentary Commissioner will have power to investigate actions taking place on ships or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or on that part of the Continental Shelf which contains an installation or designated area within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act, 1964.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 43 at the end insert:
    'or on such an installation, ship or aircraft'. —[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 8.—(EVIDENCE.)
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 15, to leave out 'or produce any document'.
    It might be for the convenience of the House to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
    The three Amendments are largely drafting Amendments, and are to meet a point which was raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). The intention of the Amendment is to make it clear that a mere passing reference to Cabinet proceedings would not be used to withhold

    1401
    from the Commissioner the whole of documents which otherwise were not related to Cabinet proceedings, and would enable any part of that kind to be blacked out. He could then consider the rest of the documents.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 10, in page 6, line 16, after 'Cabinet', to insert:
    'or to produce so much of any document as relates to such proceedings'.
    No. 11, in page 6, line 19, to leave out 'or document' and insert 'document or part of a document'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

    Clause 10.—(REPORTS BY COMMISSIONER.)
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 5, at the end to insert:
    (2) In any case where the Commissioner conducts an investigation under this Act, he shall also send a report of the results of the investigation to the principal officer of the department or authority concerned and to any other person who is alleged in the relevant complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of.
    The Amendment arises indirectly from a point made in Committee. In the Bill as drafted, the Parliamentary Commissioner is told to send reports which he makes under Clause 10(1) to the Member who asked for an investigation but not to anyone else. As a result, a Department or individual officer against whom a complaint has been made might never see the Parliamentary Commissioner's final report in a case where it exonerated him and might never be able to make public use of it.
    It might occur that the complainant had sent a copy of his complaint to the Press, as sometimes happens, and that that had received publicity, but that when finally the report of the Commissioner came, completely exonerating the civil servant and refuting the report, he would have no means of knowing that, or of sending a copy of the exonerating report to the Press. It is therefore obvious that he, too, should be entitled to receive a copy of the report.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 14, at the end to insert:
    1402
    'and may from time to time lay before that House such other reports with respect to those functions as he thinks fit'.
    This is a new point which has arisen, I can inform the House, in effect out of a suggestion of the Parliamentary Commissioner designate. At the moment, under Clause 10, the powers of the Commissioner to make reports are, first, under subsection (1), in what might be called individual cases, to make an individual case report which would then be sent to the Member and the Department concerned. Normally, that would be an end of the matter as far as Parliament was concerned and normally the Select Committee as we envisage it would not he concerned with individual cases of that kind.
    Secondly, there would be the special report procedure under subsection (2) by which when the Commissioner considered that there was an unresolved injustice, that he had reached deadlock with the Department and that the Department was not taking sufficient action, he would report to Parliament and that report would be considered by the Select Committee. Thirdly, there is the Commissioner's annual report which would be laid before Parliament and, one envisages, considered by the Select Committee and perhaps debated by the House.
    The Amendment proposes a fourth kind of report, what I might describe as an ad hoc report by the Commissioner to Parliament in order to deal with some matter which he felt to be of sufficient importance that he should raise it with the House at once. In practice, this would mean raising it with the Select Committee. It might deal with procedural matters and, in the early stages of the working of the Bill, probably would. For example, one can see that it will be necessary for us, with the assistance of the Select Committee, to work out various procedural conventions about the way in which individual cases are handled. No doubt as a result of his experience and reflections on this matter the Commissioner would be able to lay before the House reports containing suggestions and proposals of that kind. As the Bill is drafted there is no procedure by which he can make a special report of that kind and that is a gap which the Amendment is intended to fill.
    Mr. Buck: Is it intended that interim reports of this character will deal with

    1403
    the sort of situation which could arise if there were a dispute between the Commissioner and the Department as to whether a matter was, for example, within a Minister's discretion and therefore subject to the Commissioner's investigation? Is that the sort of matter which the Financial Secretary envisages the Commissioner referring to Parliament in one of the interim reports to be determined by Parliament? If not, who does he envisage resolving such an issue?
    Mr. MacDermot: I have not had notice of this question, but I think that I am

    'such publication as is hereinafter mentioned shall be absolutely privileged, that is to say—

    (a) the publication of any matter by the Commissioner in making a report to the House of Commons for the purposes of this Act;

    5

    (b) the publication of any matter by a member of that House in communicating with the Commissioner or his officers for those purposes or by the Commissioner or his officers in communicating with such a member for those purposes;

    10

    (c) the publication by such a member to the person by whom a complaint was made under this Act of a report or statement sent to the member in respect of the complaint in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section of this Act;

    (d) the publication by the Commissioner to such a person as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section of a report sent to that person in pursuance of that subsection.'.

    Mr. Speaker: With the Amendment can be discussed the Amendment to the Amendment—to leave out lines 5 to 7.
    Mr. MacDermot: This Amendment is to meet various criticisms of the Bill as drafted which were made in Committee. Subsection (4) defines the scope of the absolute privilege which it is intended to confer on the Commissioner and Members of the House in relation to his reports. We were all agreed in Committee that we must be very responsible and careful as hon. Members not to go conferring absolute discretion for the purposes or the law of defamation beyond what was strictly proper. It was felt that the words were rather loose as drafted. The Amendment seeks to make the matter more precise and particularly to relate the privilege not to the document but to various acts of publication of the document. It is the publication in the technical sense in which that word is used in the law of defamation—the publishing of the document in certain circumstances—which is privileged and not the document which is privileged for all time and for all purposes.
    1404
    right in saying that under the terms of the Bill it is for the Commissioner himself to decide whether he has jurisdiction in a particular matter. If he felt uncertain and wanted to seek further assistance from the House and from the Select Committee, the procedure which we are here proposing would be available to him and might be a useful way in which he could deal with such a situation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 7, line 15, to leave out from 'any' to the end of line 19 and to insert:
    9.45 p.m.
    We propose in the Amendment, first, that the publication of the report by the Commissioner to the House shall be absolutely privileged; I do not imagine that there will be much dispute about that. Secondly, any communication between Members and the Commissioner or his officers about a complaint which had been referred will be absolutely privileged. Thirdly, the publication of a report by the Member by sending it back to the complainant should be absolutely privileged. This is obviously necessary if we are to make the Member the channel of communication between the Commissioner and the complainant. The privilege will extend only to the publication of the report. If the Member chooses to comment on the case in his covering letter, he does this at the ordinary risk and peril which he runs in writing to his constituents on any matter. That is not the subject of absolute privilege; it is only the report itself. Fourthly, and perhaps obviously, when the Commissioner sends a copy of his report to the Department and to the civil servant complained against, that also will be privileged.

    1405
    The Amendment to the Amendment raises the question of whether we should extend this to communcations between Members of Parliament and the Commissioner. There is plainly a balanced argument here. If we as Members write to a Minister in his Department, that is not subject to absolute privilege. That matter went to the Committee of Privileges. Some people think that Members should be protected, but as matters stand they are not protected.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite right. It went to the Committee of Privileges which reported that it should be the subject of privilege. The House differed from the Committee. That is the state of the law as it rests at the moment.
    Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged for that amplification. I think that it accords with what I said.
    When we raise constituency matters in the House at Question Time, on the Adjournment or during a Supply debate, they are the subject of absolute privilege. The question which we have to decide is whether, with this new procedure which we are devising for investigating complaints, we should regard communication between a Member and the Commissioner as occurring within the ambit of the House or as being on a par with communication between, a Member and a Minister.
    As the, Parliamentary Commissioner is an officer of this House, and as we have cast this Bill in such a way as to make him available to Members as an instrument to assist them in their responsibility of safeguarding the rights of citizens, we thought it right that Members should have the complete freedom which results from that absolute privilege. We do not see that there are any risks or dangers attaching to this, and it is for this reason that we have included that also in the Amendment.
    Mr. Percy Grieve: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member may speak on it, but not move it.
    Mr. Grieve: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I want to help the hon. and learned Member. He may speak to the Amendment to the Amendment. It at the end of the debate he wishes to move it formally and to divide on it I will permit that.
    Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.
    The problem before the House has been very succinctly expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In a Bill which is designed to protect the rights and liberties of the subject it seems to me that we in this House must be particularly careful to see that other rights and other liberties are not cut down or put in jeopardy. One of the most precious rights of the subject is in his reputation. One of his most precious liberties is the right to protect his reputation by action for defamation in the courts if his reputation is attacked even on an accasion of qualified privilege, if it should be maliciously attacked.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he conceived and the Government conceived that for the purposes of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the proper exercise of his functions it was right not only that communications between him and the House, but communications by a Member reporting his statements, publication by a Member, to a person who had made a complaint, of the ombudsman's, the Parliamentary Commissioner's, decision, and the matter contained in paragraph (d)—all these were necessary; and he went on to say that, in his view, it was necessary that the publication of any matter, by a Member of the House communicating with the Commissioner, or the Commissioner with a Member of the House, also should be the subject of absolute privilege.
    It is there that I join issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman. This goes further than the privilege which exists to protect the Member communicating with a Minister, and I am bound to say that I do not see the difference in principle between communications between a Member, forwarding a complaint from one of his constituents, and a Minister, and the communications which hereafter, when this Bill becomes law, will be made by Members to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
    Mr. Hale: If I get a letter from Korea saying, "I am a British soldier serving here still; I have been charged, and condemned to death; and have been denied my right of appeal, and they are going to shoot me a week on Tuesday" and I get it on Monday, what are the communications I make to protect myself from libel in case the letter is not from a British soldier even though it bears the stamps and has got all the particulars? Surely, there is case after case—I thought the Strauss ruling was all tripe—but there is case after case where it is incumbent upon a Member of Parliament, with the possibility of investigation, to express, with discretion and tact, and without making unnecessary allegations against anybody, tremendously important and tremendously urgent matters.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it enables me to make more clearly the point which I trust I was already making to the House. If the hon. Member takes straight away to the Minister, as he obviously will, the urgent complaint which he has received, in the terms in which he received it, nobody could possibly impugn that or accuse him of malice in the doing of it. The same would apply to a communication between an hon. Member and the Parliamenttary Commissioner.
    It is very important these days that the umbrella of absolute privilege, which covers anything which we say or do in this Chamber, should not be taken further than is absolutely necessary to cover the actions of hon. Members in this House or when they are acting in their capacity as Members outside the Chamber. We would not be doing this House a service by carrying the protection of absolute privilege further than is necessary. It is not necessary, in my submission, in this case.
    Hon. Members may adduce cases, but I can conceive of no case where the action of a Member acting honestly in carrying to the Commissioner a complaint he has received from a constituent or someone whose interests he is rightly looking after, can be impugned, unless he goes further and makes himself guilty of malice in the doing of it; and, if he does that, why should he be protected?
    1408
    The same consideration applies in the reverse direction, to the Commissioner himself in his communications with an hon. Member. In those cases, the ordinary law of the land, the ordinary qualified privilege which would prevail in such a case where they both have an interest, is quite sufficient to protect the hon. Member, and to protect the Commissioner, and to go further is to make a grave inroad into the rights and liberties of the subject whom we are hoping to protect.
    Sir D. Glover: I hesitate to intervene in what seems to be a lawyers' argument, but I rise to support the arguments put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). I will be quite honest and say that, when I listened to the Financial Secretary, I saw a great deal in his argument.
    If I can diverge for a moment, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) always seems to have constituents who are going to be shot in 24 hours. I have been a Member of this House for 15 years and none of my constituents ever seem to get shot.
    Mr. Hale: I came to this House on one occasion, almost by accident, on a Monday morning, when four men were at the place of execution and were to be hanged that night. Two of them are still alive as a result of the fact that I got to the House that morning. Let us not be too facetious about these matters.
    Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member is a good friend of mine. I hope he will accept that I was only pulling his leg. I know that he has done a great deal in the cause of human justice.
    It appears to me that my hon. and learned Friend has a stronger argument than the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I accept that, if I were writing to the Parliamentary Commissioner, I would want to say everything under complete privilege. But suppose that this week I received a letter from one of my constituents saying that he was insured with X insurance company, and I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner saying that it was one of the "shark" companies and he ought to investigate, but, in fact, it was one of the soundest and straightest companies in the country. In that circumstance, I ought not to be covered by privilege, because I am

    1409
    making a subjective judgment on the results of the publicity which has gone out, and I am ruining the reputation of a perfectly sound firm. I do not think that in that case I should be completely covered. It is a very good salutary discipline for Members of Parliament in those conditions to have to send it to the Parliamentary Commissioner, saying, "I have had this complaint from one of my constituents. I have no knowledge of whether the allegations are right or wrong, but, if I use my influence as a Member of Parliament"—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL
  Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
  Sir D. Glover: In that circumstance, we ought not to be covered by complete privilege. When there is emotional feeling aroused generally, when, perhaps, there is a campaign being run by the hon. Member for Oldham, West or by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, it is only too easy, if we think that we are covered by privilege as Members of Parliament, to write to the Commissioner making allegations which we cannot prove, which may eventually become public, and which may ruin the reputation of all sorts of people, private individuals, firms and so on.
  It is a salutary discipline for Members of Parliament, when writing to the Commissioner, to realise that we are covered to a limit only and not completely covered. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the Amendment to his Amendment.
  Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: I find it very difficult to understand the purport of the Amendment. I may have misunderstood, but I gather
  1410
  that the intention is to delete paragraph (b) of the Government Amendment, which would mean that, when the Parliamentary Commissioner sent his report or statement to the Member of Parliament, the sending of it and its receipt by the Member would not then be subject to absolute privilege. But the anomaly then is that, when the Member sends the same report or statement to his constituent or complainant, it is covered by absolute privilege.
  I find it so illogical that I must oppose the Amendment.
  Mr. Ian Percival: Like my hon. Friends, I am prepared to limit my remarks to paragraph (b) of the Government Amendment, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to have another think about it. With respect, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) has, understandably, confused different parts of the Amendment. As I understand it, paragraph (b) deals simply with what is said by a Member in communicating with the Commissioner. This is the important thing. That is what it says and, if I am wrong, the hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me. However, that is the understanding, and it is on that basis that the Amendment has been moved.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to say that there was a nice balance here between two possible views. I agree that the Parliamentary Commissioner should be given absolute privilege and his report must be privileged when it is sent on; otherwise, the thing is made a nonsense. All we are concerned with here is what privilege should attach to a Member of Parliament in the part he takes. That, perhaps, puts it more simply. At all events, that is what concerns me—the degree of privilege which a Member of Parliament should have in his dealings with the Parliamentary Commissioner and with his constituent in relation to these matters.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was a nice balance here and one had to choose between two alternatives. On the one hand, there is the qualified privilege which Members have in dealing with Ministers. On the other hand, there is the absolute privilege enjoyed in everything done in the House. As I understand his argument, the hon.

  1411
  and learned Gentleman then goes on to say, "The Parliamentary Commissioner being a servant of the House, the closer analogy is with the second of those two and there should, therefore, be absolute privilege".
  I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider this. I do not think that that is the right way to approach it. The right way to approach is that the Member should have the minimum of privilege necessary to enable him to do his job. What is the case for giving him more privilege than he enjoys in connection with communications to Ministers? Is there any case for giving him greater privilege than that?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has given at least one case which illustrates the desirability of not giving Members any greater privileges than are necessary to enable them to do their jobs conscientiously. So far I have heard no reason advanced to the House, save this reasoning by analogy, which I suggest is not a good approach to it, why Members should have more than the qualified privilege. As my hon. Friend said, there is a danger that points like this can lead to the discussion becoming a lawyer's debate. It might, therefore be as well to remind the House that if subsection (b) is left out altogether a Member will have complete privilege unless he is acting maliciously, because in every such communication there must be a common interest between him and the Parliamentary Commissioner. He will, therefore, be entirely privileged unless he is acting maliciously.
  Before I vote for the Amendment, or do not vote for the Amendment to the Amendment, whichever is the correct way of putting it, I should like to be satisfied that we need more protection than we will have even without subsection (b).
  Mr. Hale: It is strange that on a perfectly innocuous and apparently unimportant discussion we should find ourselves from time to time back to the very elements of the virtues, duties, and responsibilities of this House, and freedom of speech is one of them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite use the word "malicious". It has a horrid sound—of malice aforethought. What does
  1412
  malicious mean? It means a lack of care.
  Mr. Hogg indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hale: Yes, indeed, in this connection. Perhaps they will say that it means a reckless lack of care. Let us have the definition. We are talking, not about crime, but about libel, a statement written without taking steps to verify it, a statement written with a reckless lack of care, if one likes.
  Mr. MacDermot: I think I am right in saying that "malicious" has different means for different purposes in the law of defamation. For this purpose it is spite or ill-will.
  Mr. Hale: I have had a fairly active experience of libel cases, right up to the House of Lords. One of the present important questions was laid in a case of mine by a unanimous decision of the House of Lords. I agree that malice in commercial matters means precious little, but something that could be called deliberate, and even a last-minute deliberation.
  In establishing malice it is essential to establish no more than the making of a statement with such a lack of care that the jury can do it. In any event it is a decision for the jury. The finding is still a decision for the jury, and therefore it is a decision of fact. There it is. It is not very germane to my argument in any event. I was merely trying to deal with what the hon. Gentleman said.
  I think that the argument advanced by the other side is completely dishonest. I say this with respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite. What was the example quoted by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)? The hon. Member for Ormskirk referred to insurance companies. I assure him that I get hundreds of letters, of which at least 75 per cent. represent cases brought to my notice by my constituents. The hon. Gentleman is right. We do tend not to say what we think about people, not even about our own Ministers, and this is an inhibition which sometimes becomes extremely pressing.
  Nevertheless, I have to rely on the letters I receive. The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that the letters he receives are always urgent. That, too, is true.

  1413
  They may be concerned with trifling matters or they may be of great moment. About a month ago I received a letter from a lady stating that she had not received a receipt from a firm from which she had purchased a certain commodity. I wrote to the best people in Oldham, excellent agents, and got her the receipt she wanted a couple of days later. I then received a letter from the lady saying that she was very thankful and that I should be made Prime Minister. I wrote back thanking her and saying that I entirely agreed but that that might take a little longer to procure.
  While this and similar matters may be the subjects of the occasional joke, they are serious grievances to the people who raise them. We must act on the information that is given to us, often given by people who are strangers to us, on matters which we cannot investigate or check. We receive letters from people who are in mental hospitals, in confinement and so on and often the allegations are made—made, I am sure in such a way that the writers are careful not to repeat allegations which they cannot substantiate. While we are not entitled to justify, if that is the best word to use, such allegations, we are at least entitled—and this is part of our duty—to put these matters to the Ministers concerned and say that we seek to put the grievances right.
  If we have made an investigation and then consider the question of reporting a matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner, if we are in communication with him, should we say that that burden—of reporting the matter to him—should not be placed upon us? After all, we are in the position of counsel. Counsel's privilege is absolute. Judicial privilege is absolute. The privilege of the Parliamentary Commissioner will be absolute. Why should we be the only people who, without having anything like the services which are available to some people, may find ourselves in difficulty because of this?
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a lot out of this. When we write to a Minister we are covered by qualified privilege. In the case I cited, if I wrote to the ombudsman and said, "This is one of those sharks",
  1414
  that would be a grave libel. But if I wrote saying "This is one of the 34 companies cited by the Minister in the House", it would not be a grave libel. That is not limiting the powers of the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman appears to be trying to allow hon. Members to say the most scurrilous things about people who cannot defend themselves and which should not be said until such matters have been proven.
  Mr. Hale: This business of it being only qualified privilege when one writes to a Minister was one of the arguments used in the Strauss case, which was a special case based on rather special grounds and which involved a decision which many people disputed at the time. I have never claimed privilege. I dislike the assertion of privilege for the House. I dislike the idea of bringing people before the House for saying things which we know to be true but which they have expressed with a certain amount of violence. I dislike the exercise of privilege for the House, except the privilege incumbent in the performance of an hon. Member's duty.
  Having imposed on us by the Bill a duty which I regarded with grave doubts when it was first postulated, hon. Gentlemen opposite now wish to enforce on me the duty of acting as a judge on the veracity, integrity and honesty of my constituents. I have always taken the view that my duty is to act as a channel of communication between the complainant and the throne—the Minister being the throne in this case—and that if any of my constituents had a grievance I would put it before the relevant Minister.
  10.15 p.m.
  I have also always taken the view that, faced with any grievance, I should not express personal approval or otherwise but merely associate myself with the points put. However, when I have put my case and have tried my hardest to see that justice is done, I am unable at that stage to do more. But hon. Gentlemen opposite now want me to have the burden of writing to my constituent saying, "I did put your view forward but either I have come to the conclusion that justice has already been done or that your case is not worthy of being submitted to the Parliamentary Commissioner, either because of its lack of importance or because

  1415
  it is not an urgent matter". It is a difficult obligation to put on one to come to the conclusion that it is proper that a certain course should be taken in those terms. If an hon. Member is to do that, he should be able to perform the task unshackled and be privileged in communicating with the Commission and in receiving communications. That should apply to any reports he must make and which are almost inevitably ex parte. The evidence has come from one side only, but the replies come from possibly a Minister or others on the other side.
  Mr. MacDermot: I will reply now since the House will, no doubt, wish to come to a conclusion on this matter. The matter we are discussing is not new in the Amendment. It is one of the points which was covered in the original drafting of the Bill.
  I think we are agreed that it would not be right for us to confer this absolute privilege on ourselves unless it is necessary to enable us to do our job conscientiously. I do not believe that it is putting the dilemma correctly to say that the question is whether we need to be protected even when we are acting with malice. That is not the point. The issue is whether we need to be protected against the allegation that we are acting with malice. The matter was put succinctly by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) in Committee, when he spoke about the absolute privilege which it was proposed to confer on the Parliamentary Commissioner. He said:
  "There may be all kinds of lunatic who would sue the Commissioner for malice. It is unthinkable that he would publish anything with malice, but it is quite thinkable that a person will sue him, saying that he is guilty of malice. That is why judges are protected—not because it is thought that they will be malicious, but because it is thought that people might accuse them of being malicious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 17th November, 1966; c. 319–20.]
  This is the question of whether we need to confer upon Members of Parliament that absolute freedom which results from absolute privilege knowing that they cannot subsequently be made the subject of a vexatious piece of litigation by someone who will allege that they have been malicious.
  Why should this be necessary for the proper performance of our task? One of
  1416
  the things that we would have to do at times is to act as advocates for our complainant to try to persuade the Commissioner in the exercise of his discretion to take up the case. Not all Members of Parliament are trained lawyers and many hon. Members identify themselves strongly with constituents on whose behalf they take up cases. If they are in their way to argue strenuously for the grievance which they believe has existed, they may say, and I suggest it is right that they should be free to say, in what are fairly confidential communications between them and the Commissioner, what is in their heart and mind about the matter without feeling that they might be exposing themselves to the risk of having proceedings of this kind taken against them. That is why I suggest that it is right that we should confer this exceptional privilege on ourselves in this connection.
  Question put and negatived.
  Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.
  Mr. Grieve: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 5 to 7.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
  Amendment agreed to.

  PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL

    Clause 11.—(PROVISION FOR SECRECY OF INFORMATION.)
    Amendment made: No. 15, in page 7, line 20, leave out
    'his officers and his servants' and insert 'and his officers'.—[Mr. MacDermot]
    Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 29, to leave out
    'or an offence of perjury'
    and to insert:
    'alleged to have been committed in respect of information obtained by the Commissioner or any of his officers by virtue of this Act or for an offence of perjury alleged to have been committed in the course of an investigation under this Act or for the purposes of an inquiry with a view to the taking of such proceedings'.
    This Amendment is to meet a point which was raised by the hon. and learned

    1417
    Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). Its purpose is to make it clear that the occasions which are referred to in the subsection of proceedings for perjury or proceedings under the Official Secrets Act being occasions when the Commissioner is entitled to disclose matters which he learns during the course of an investigation, should be limited to offences of perjury or proceedings under the Official Secrets Act which are taken in relation to the Commissioner's own activities and functions and those of his staff. In other words, we are limiting the words in the Bill which were criticised as being too wide.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Amendments made: No. 17, in page 8, line 22, at end insert 'officer' includes employee.
    No. 18 in line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

  Schedule 2.—(DEPARTMENTS AND AUTH- ORITIES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)
  Mr. Roots: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert 'Land Commission'.
  I can deal with the Amendment very shortly. In Committee the Financial Secretary undertook to deal with this matter. I have put down the Amendment to enable him to do so.
  Mr. MacDermot: It is quite correct that I undertook to move this Amendment in due time, but the time is not yet due. We cannot insert this Amendment in the Bill unless and until the Land Commission Bill becomes an Act of Parliament before this one has completed its various stages. If that does not happen, we would then include the Land Commission in Schedule 2 by means of an order. It may be possible to make this Amendment in another place, but we cannot do it now.
  Mr. Roots: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 20, in page 11, line 38, at end insert:
  'Lord President of the Council's Office'.
  No. 22, in page 12, line 15, at end insert:
  2. The reference to the Lord President of the Council's Office does not include the Privy Council Office.—[Mr. Crossman.]
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 37, at the end to insert:
  7. In relation to any function exercisable by a department or authority for the time being listed in this Schedule which was previously exercisable on behalf of the Crown by a department or authority not so listed, the reference to the department or authority so listed includes a reference to the other department or authority.
  This is to meet a point which was raised in Committee and to make it clear that, where there has been a transfer of functions from a department which has ceased to exist to a present Department, the Commissioner's powers in relation to the present Department will include those transferred functions.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 3.—(MATTERS NOT SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.)
  Mr. Roots: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 13, line 4, at the end to insert:
  'unless such action affects the legal rights or status of a citizen of the United Kingdom'.
  In Committe the Financial Secretary had pressed upon him at some length the deficiency in this paragraph of the Schedule. He said that he would consider a form of words which would enable, in particular—as an example—action and proceedings taken by consular officers to be dealt with. In these circumstances, as the Government have not tabled an Amendment, I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to accept this addition.
  Mr. MacDermot: It is true that in Committee I offered to look further at paragraph 2 and see whether it would be possible at least to bring some of the activities of consuls within the scope of the Commissioner's investigation. I may have raised some hopes in the breasts of hon. Members. I must now dash them. I must make the reasons clear.
  1420
  On looking further into this, I have to advise the House that it would not be workable, certainly at present, for us to try to include consular activities within the scope of the Commissioner's powers. The first reason is a severely practical one. There are over 400 consular posts throughout the world. They range from such places as Oulu in North Finland to Gallegos on the southern tip of the Argentine, from Katmandu to Tampico to Suva—in fact, to all quarters of the globe.
  The Committee accepted that it would be wholly impracticable for us to expect the Commissioner and his officers to be flying all over the globe trying to investigate complaints against these consuls. Nor would it be practicable or consistent with the efficient working of the service to be recalling consuls and their officers constantly to this country in order that they should be interrogated by the Commissioner of his staff. Apart from anything else, this would be a stage where I would need as a Treasury Minister to put my foot down, simply on grounds of expense, if nothing else.
  It was having regard to this sort of difficulty that I suggested that we would consider whether it might be possible to deal with these cases by a different procedure, relying largely on correspondence, or by the Commissioner interviewing the head of the department.
  10.30 p.m.
  When that suggestion was looked into, it found favour on no side. It certainly did not find favour with the Foreign Office, because they thought that it would be very unfair to their staff. After all, we hope and believe that many of the cases that are investigated by the Commissioner will result in the exoneration of the civil servant in respect of the complaint made against him, and the civil servant, naturally, will feel that justice requires that he should have exactly the same rights when he is a consul as any other civil servant to be heard in relation to a complaint that is made against him.
  Equally, I must advise the House that the Commissioner-designate himself did not relish at all the prospect of a kind of second-class investigation which he would be expected to make in relation to consular activities and be expected to

  1421
  make a report and reach a decision without being free to investigate the matter as fully as he would in any other case.
  At the outset, just on those simple and practical grounds, at a stage when we do not yet know what is to be the kind of response to the right to make complaints and have them investigated by the Commissioner, we could not accept the responsibility of extending his activities in this way.
  However, it is right that I should advise the House that there are other serious objections. I said in Committee that the activities of consuls
  "…are to a high degree dependent on the actions of local authorities and local persons for which we are not responsible and over which we have no control and which it would not be appropriate for the Commissioner to investigate."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 22nd November, 1966; c. 405.]
  May I illustrate what I was saying there in relation to a specific example of a complaint made against a consul? I will not state the country, but an engineering firm in this country manufactured and supplied some heavy machinery to a foreign firm in a European city. Although the contract called for payment on completion, no payment was made, and the English firm had to sue for the contract price. It issued a writ in the High Court here which had to be served in the country abroad through the consul, in accordance with the Civil Procedure Convention. There was no British consul in the city in question, so the Foreign Office forwarded the documents for service to the nearest post, which was the consulate-general in whose district the city lay.
  The documents arrived at the height of the tourist season, when the office was under very heavy pressure—[Interruption.]—I do not know why the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) laughs. It is helpful, when passing legislation, to try to focus our minds on actual circumstances that occur and about which we are asked to legislate. These are the sorts of circumstances which give rise to complaints against consuls.
  As a result of that fact, the fact that the round journey of 500 miles or so would have taken two or three days and because of the high cost of effecting ser-
  1422
  vice in this way, the consul-general decided that service by the local authorities, if it could be effected reasonably, would be preferable to service by a consular official. He instructed the vice-consul to find out from the local authorities whether they could effect service expeditiously under the alternative method provided by the Convention. He received an assurance that they could. The documents were forwarded to the local authorities, under cover of a formal note.
  In the event, owing to delays in the local administrative and judicial machinery, service was not effected until many weeks had elapsed, despite frequent reminders to the local authorities that the matter was urgent.
  Not unnaturally, the plaintiff company complained of this delay and alleged that it was disadvantaged in the proceedings as a result of it. In the meantime, the vice-consul had been posted from his European station to San Francisco. How would this be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner?
  Either the Parliamentary Commissioner would stay in this country and the consul and vice-consul would be brought here or he would be expected to visit the country concerned. In either case, the cost would be very great. If the consul and vice-consul were brought here, it would mean serious disruption of the work of two consulates abroad. In any event, it would be difficult for the Parliamentary Commissioner here, without questioning the rest of the staff and examining the consular archives, to satisfy himself that the pressure of work in the consulate general justified the decision to attempt service through the local authorities.
  Again, of course, the Parliamentary Commissioner could not satisfy himself about the alleged delay by the local authorities without being in that country. If, on the other hand, he visited the country—and here there would be the same difficulties about cost—there would be the added difficulty that any attempt by him to interrogate the local authorities would undoubtedly cause resentment on their part and might well, apart from anything else, result in the consulate-general receiving less co-operation in the future.
  The fact is that, in this case, as in so many cases of complaints made against

  1423
  consuls, it is their actions in relation to local authorities which are the subject of complaint and it would clearly be out of the question for us to send an officer of this House abroad and expect the other country to allow him to pursue an investigation by questioning and interviewing officials and authorities of that country. Without being able to do that, he would not be able to do anything more than form an assessment or judgment of what the consul had told him.
  I think this example shows the serious practical difficulties in expecting the Parliamentary Commissioner here to be able to investigate complaints against consuls abroad. In addition to this, there is the great difficulty of finding any logically defensible way of dividing up the functions of consuls in order to limit the field of activities which should be the subject of investigation.
  The Amendment suggests that we should confine it to actions affecting legal rights or status but this would be a wholly unsatisfactory distinction. One can get examples of quite trivial matters which involve, in some technical way, legal rights and therefore would give a right to investigation. Other far more serious matters, the kind of matters which are the subject of quite a number of complaints, would not, however, be within the scope at all.
  For example, many of the complaints against consuls involve such matters as procedure by consuls for the repatriation of British subjects, advice and assistance given to British subjects when they run foul of the law or the authorities of another country and commercial information which is given to British businessmen for business purposes. None of these would be within the scope of the Amendment, but they are all instances of the kind of matters raised in our discussions in Committee as being the sort of things hon. Members would like to have seen brought within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  An added difficulty is that, in many places, the consuls are not full-time members of our diplomatic staff but are honorary consuls who act for little if any remuneration, are usually citizens of the country concerned or perhaps local businessmen. They perform a very useful and valuable service and give a great deal
  1424
  of assistance. It is doubtful whether they would be prepared to continue in circumstances where they would be subject to this kind of investigation and inquiry procedure. If they resigned in consequence, in many cases we would be hard put to it to find substitutes.
  From a practical point of view there is nothing the Parliamentary Commissioner could do here beyond what a Minister can and does do when a Member refers one of those complaints to him. A Minister can call for a report, have the matter investigated by one of his senior officials, and discuss it with him. He can reach a judgment on the basis of investigation largely carried out by correspondence. It would be false of us in effect to ask the Parliamentary Commissioner to step into the Minister's shoes and do that and no more, and then pretend that we were giving some different and fuller type of investigation by allowing that to be done by him.
  I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but this is an important matter which concerned many hon. Members in Committee, and I thought that I should explain fairly fully the reasons why we do not think it right to include consular activities.
  Sir L. Heald: A protest should be made against probably one of the most bureaucratic speeches that has been made in the House for a long time—administrative convenience; the fact that some of the consuls might be apt to resign if asked to protect the rights of British subjects; the difficulty of getting information from different parts of the world. And for what? To deal with a case where the legal rights of a British subject are involved. The hon. and learned Gentleman should be ashamed of putting forward that kind of Treasury brief in such a matter.
  Mr. Onslow: I share the regret of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) at the Financial Secretary's attitude to the Amendment. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for only one small thing. As a former British consul, I am glad to have confirmation that whatever happens the sun still does not set on British consuls.

  1425
  His argument against accepting the Amendment seemed rather odd, particularly in the light of what the Lord President said on one earlier Amendment. How many complaints are levied against British consuls in a year? How many of them would come within the ambit of this or some other definition of a case of maladministration which might be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner? It is all very well talking in terms of vast mileage which would have to be travelled by investigating officers looking into this, but it would be nice to have some sort of chapter and verse on that. It would be particularly interesting to know whether the case to which he referred at such length was, in his opinion, one which might have been referred to the Commissioner, for otherwise it is very difficult to evaluate his argument.
  I will give the Lord President the credit of believing that he was serious when he held out the hope that by amending Clause 5, which would enable Schedule 3 to be amended by Order in Council, we might be able to bring the activities of British consuls within the ambit of the Bill. It would be a courtesy on his part now to explain how he sees the situation as described by the Financial Secretary having to be changed before the Order in Council could be brought before the House.
  Would we have to see the 400 British consuls reduced to 20? Would we have to await the advent of Concord and cheap inter-continental travel? Where is the hope of some amendment in the objections to the informal procedure that enables him to hold out the possibility of bringing the British consuls within the ambit of the Bill? Or is the Lord President just frivolling? I am very much afraid that either he has not studied the brief which the Financial Secretary read with such care and attention to detail or is utterly unconvinced by it, in which case why should the Financial Secretary persist in his bureaucratic objections?
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hogg: I would not have intervened but for the testiness of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary when he saw, or thought that he saw, a smile of polite scepticism at his explanations pass over my counten-
  1426
  ance. The scepticism was surely well justified.
  Under Clause 8, the ombudsman can investigate a case by correspondence and I dare say that in the great majority of cases he will. If he has to travel to interview, or ask an official to return for interview, that surely will be the serious case, the case which requires investigation and which deserves a little extra expense. To present to the House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to do, a picture of the ombudsman having to travel to San Francisco to interview an official because he has found difficulty in serving a document when he was appointed to Helsinki is utterly unreal and if the hon. and learned Gentleman expects those who listen to that kind of explanation not to show a certain amount of amusements and if he resents it when they do, he should offer better explanations.
  As for the Lord President of the Council; when he offered the chance by some later Statutory Instrument of consuls being brought in, of course we knew that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek.
  Sir D. Glover: All the Financial Secretary has said is that vice-consuls who may not be nationals of this country, could not be brought within the ambit of the Bill. That is a dreadful statement to make about the protection of the rights of British citizens. If a citizen is suffering hardship or injustice because of a consul in some outlandish place—and I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend would mind if I said that that would probably not apply to San Francisco, although it might apply to many places in South America and elsewhere—and if that consul might resign because the ombudsman criticised him, then it would be a very good thing if he did resign and we got another consul.
  The reason for the Consular Service was the protection of the rights of British citizens and if it is not protecting those rights, there is something wrong with the Consular Service. It is no argument at all to say, as the Financial Secretary said, that administrative inconvenience might be caused and someone might resign. In that case, it might be a very

  1427
  good thing if the person concerned did resign.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I have no wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) but the Minister said that this was a consul-general in a European country who, because he was busy during the holiday season—although doing what I am not sure, because the troubles of British tourists abroad are usually dealt with by some junior official and not the consul-general—and who, by the Minister's own admission had a vice-consul, had sent or failed to send papers to some local authority in a distant part.
  This is all to do with the payment for some goods which have been exported, and surely the interests of British subjects in the export trade must be a concern of the Government. With their 110 or 111 Ministers plus the ombudsman, the Government must be interested in this and yet all we have been told is that it may be administratively difficult to deal with these cases.
  I represent a great commercial city, the City of Bristol, which is much given to patriotic gestures in the export trade and doing its best to follow the Government's urgings and edicts to export. Here is another example of the Government for sheer administrative convenience not being prepared to make this great ombudsman, the curer of all ills, able to do his bit in the export drive, and heaven knows that we need all the help we can get. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the Government's explanation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 13, line 13, after action', insert 'so'.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Mr. Crossman: I beg to move, Amendment No. 27, in page 13, line 22, at the end to insert:
  8. Action taken on behalf of the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State by a Regional Hospital Board, Board of Governors of a Teaching Hospital, Hospital Management Committee or Board of Management, or by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.
  This is the Amendment by which we put back into the Bill the decision that regional hospital boards should be excluded from the work of the ombudsman. I shall not repeat all the arguments rehearsed in Committee, but there was
  1428
  serious objection to this, and there was a strong case for including them in the Bill. The basic argument against that was that there would be an awkward situation: we would have the medical service excluded from the ombudsman's consideration and the administration of the hospitals included; the ophthalmic service would be out, the dental service would be out, the pharmaceutical service would be out, and we would have the administration in.
  I would be happy to see the ombudsman's work develop, but I would have thought we would like to see local government having its own commissioner and the hospital service having its own commissioner. So I think that it is better, on balance, that these services should be excluded now, always on the understanding that at a later date they can be put under the Commissioner by order of the House.
  Mr. Roots: The fact that the Government have decided to move this Amendment to exclude from investigation the regional hospital boards and the other bodies mentioned will, I know, give a great deal of disappointment. Certainly it disappoints me. Since the Committee proceedings were reported I have had a number of letters from people all over the country wanting to have matters which were not entirely clinical investigated.
  We have put down an Amendment to the Amendment to make it clear that clinical decisions should indeed be excluded, but if there is anyone who thinks hospital services—for example, regional hospital boards—are not subject to maladministration then he certainly can know very little about those bodies, because in many respects it is instances of maladministration which gives rise to a great deal of hard feeling—in a sense, unjustified, since it is criticism of the hospital services as such, rather than of the medical and clinical services.
  I really cannot accept that it is impossible to distinguish, for the purposes of a complaint, between a clinical decision and sheer maladministration. An example dealt with at length in Committee was a useful one—the choice, for reasons other than clinical, of who should and should not have a private room or a private bed—and may be a matter which merits investigation.

  1429
  I am confining my remarks to stressing the disappointment which, I know, a large number of Members will feel on the final absurdity of the whole position, which is that we find more and more ombudsmen breeding like a sort of fungi, for the Lord President apparently thinks everyone should have an ombudsman. I see we put his Department in, and therefore he may be feeling generous about other Departments.
  When we have little ombudsmen for hospital and little ombudsmen for this and for that, it seems that the Lord President's intention is to produce absolute chaos, with ombudsmen investigating ombudsmen.
  Mr. Crossman: I must correct that. What I said was exactly the opposite. I said, in the case of the Health Service, that I would be in favour of having it all in or all out; that it would be a mistake to have a division between those bodies mentioned in the Amendment and the other side, such as orthopaedics, the dental service, the pharmaceutical service, and general practitioners. It was this artificial division in the Health Service to which I objected. It is wrong to say that I wanted a separate ombudsman. I said, on the contrary, that it was now possible to consider it as a whole, and I would be in favour in due course of considering the possibility of bringing it in later. That is why we have the provision in Schedule 3.
  Mr. Roots: I had understood the Lord President to envisage—and I should have thought it was the only way to envisage it—an ombudsman for the various hospital and medical services. I do not see how a Civil Service ombudsman could come to a conclusion on a clinical decision. I should have thought that, for all time, clinical decisions were highly unsuitable for investigation by any ombudsman, whether a hospital ombudsman or any other type.
  This is another example of taking away from the ombudsman the very aspects which people want investigated. The operations of the Minister of Health already affect members of the public through, for example, the hospital service. The replacement of this paragraph is a very retrograde step.
  Mr. Michael English: I agree with the last sentence of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). This is a highly retrograde step. Many Amendments were made to the Bill in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have accepted most of the Amendments that were made. To a large extent the Bill was not discussed purely on party lines. There were several issues on which the division of opinion was across party lines, and it may rightly be said that this was one.
  My right hon. Friend the Lord President started off by saying that it would be wrong to have the hospitals in because there is an artificial division in the medical services. These are those things which the Crown is responsible for, which the Minister of Health is responsible for in theory where action is taken on his behalf. This is one category. There are others which are local authority services. This is wholly true, but it is equally true in other fields as well. Transport is an example, where the functions are divided between local authorities and the Crown. But in that case the actions of the Crown's officers and subordinates are to be investigated by the ombudsman, and not those of the local authorities. Why cannot the same principle apply here?
  My right hon Friend knows the real explanation for putting this back. The real explanation is that doctors who are not civil servants—I stress that this is the category involved, not those, who in the normal and proper sense work in the Ministry of Health—might be offended if any of their decisions were subject to investigation.
  I should like to correct one small point that was made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). It is not true to say that the sole proposal made in Committee was to exclude clinical matters and to include administrative matters. There were several views advanced, and that particular one was put by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). I do not share it. I supported the total exclusion of this paragraph, as did many of my hon. Friends, for the simple reason that we do not see why doctors should be a professional class apart.

  1431
  Why should doctors' clinical judgments not be challenged? A "vet's" clinical judgments, which may affect the property of a farmer, can be challenged as the Bill now stands. The same is true of any other professional judgment. There is good reason why some of them might be challenged. It is interesting that this can be done by the medical branch of the Ministry of Health itself, and, strangely enough, the Ministry's medical branch is not excluded by the terms of the Amendment. In other words, if I have a cause of complaint and I can persuade my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to use his medical branch to investigate the actions of doctors in the Hospital Service, I can then get the ombudsman to investigate that investigation and, presumably, in the course of doing it, he would have to refer back to the papers which the Ministry's medical branch looked at when doing the preliminary investigation.
  But if I want to go about it in a more straightforward way and say, "Something went wrong in this hospital", whether it was someone kept out of a bed for inessential and invalid reasons or whatever it might be, I cannot get the ombudsman to deal with the problem direct. But, as I say, I can in a roundabout route achieve the same object. The Government's case here is somewhat peculiar to say the least.
  I accept my right hon. Friend's point that, because of the Amendment regarding the possibility of excluding matters from Schedule 3, the Bill is now considerably better in this respect, but I still think that this particular Amendment has been put down because of the extreme sensitivity of the medical profession to criticisms or inquiries which most ordinary citizens believe to be good and which other professions accept in the interests of society as a whole. That is the real reason for the Amendment, and I regard it, therefore, as rather disgraceful that it should be the only item dealt with by the Committee which the Government have seen fit to put back into the Bill.
  Mr. Hooson: The Lord President's attitude is very disappointing. We are concerned here with a Bill which gives Members of Parliament assistance in remedying administrative injustices. I imagine that a fair proportion of the
  1432
  total sum of administrative injustice in this country arises in the hospital services, the decisions of regional hospital boards, and so on. These injustices bear very hard on patients and potential patients. We know from our post-bag that these are the problems we have from time to time which should be investigated. If we are deprived of the assistance of the ombudsman in investigating complaints from patients or potential patients, we shut out of the Bill the people who are least able to bear the administrative injustices, namely, the sick.
  This is a highly retrograde step, and the Government have not attempted to justify it. The Lord President's attempt to differentiate between administrative injustice due to a decision of administrative staff and an injustice arising on the clinical side does not bear examination. Many injustices will be shut out from the field of inquiry of the ombudsman.
  There is everything to be said for part at least of the National Health Service to be investigated by the ombudsman. We can add others later if it is found to work well. I am sure that the majority of hon. and right hon. Members agree that the Lord President has not made out his case for excluding the hospital services.
  Dr. David Owen: I am disquieted that the Government have seen fit to reintroduce this paragraph. When the matter was first broached, I wondered whether it would be wise to exclude it, and I had very mixed feelings. The more I read the reports of the Committee stage of the Bill, the more I feel that the case for excluding the regional hospital boards and hospital management committees from the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner has not truly been made out.
  For many years many of us have been very concerned about the undemocratic nature of regional hospital boards. It is well known that Aneurin Bevin was very upset that he did not find it possible to incorporate local government and a democratically elected element into the organisation and administrative structure of the National Health Service. At that time it was impossible to do so, for many

  1433
  reasons—the difficulties of introducing a Bill, and so on—but it has always been the belief of many people in our party that a democratically elected regional hospital board should be the eventual aim. Obviously it will be many years before we get this.
  We have now, in the Parliamentary Commissioner, a way of exerting some form of control over this section, and though I take the point made by the Lord President of the Council that we cannot include the general practitioner service, and other services which are run by the executive councils, the main administrative service lies in the regional hospital boards, and in the hospital management committees.
  I can understand that because of the feelings of the Minister of Health the Government feel that they have to reinsert this subsection, but I hope that they will look again at this issue, and if possible give the House a pledge that they will establish a special hospital ombudsman if the case has to be made out that way. Many of us believe that this could naturally fall within the range of the present Parliamentary Commissioner, and I hope that the Government will think again on this.
  Sir D. Glover: I am very encouraged, and I support nearly everything that was said about this problem by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Although I have enormous respect for the individual who will take up this office, I have no great faith in the amount of injustice which will be removed by his appointment.
  I find it possible to deal with nearly all the cases of justice which arise in my constituency. The one sphere in which I do not feel qualified to judge is health, which the Government are going to exclude. I think that this applies to most hon. Members. In our ordinary lives we know a good deal about industrial relations, about housing, and about this, that, and the other. The one sphere in which we are inhibited is health. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) is in a fortunate position, because he is a doctor, but most of us are not qualified to judge this issue, and I have a particular problem in my constituency
  1434
  which I think ought to be included in the ombudsman's orbit.
  There are two hospitals in this country, one at Rampton, in Nottinghamshire, and one in my constituency—
  Mr. English: I believe I am right in saying that hospitals directly under the control of the Ministry of Health are in fact included, which makes this Bill even odder.
  Sir D. Glover: I am delighted to hear that, because this is the problem with which I find it most difficult to deal. I was not a Member of the Standing Committee, so I do not have the advantage which the hon. Gentleman has.
  What happens to the marginal case which is moved from one of the two hospitals which I have in mind to another hospital; someone who is still suffering from a sense of grievance? Who investigates such a case in a way which gives anybody any feeling of justice? I think that this is an even further argument why this aspect of the Health Service ought to be included.
  I would not mind if tonight the Lord President of the Council said, "Look here, chums. This is a new field"[HON. MEMBERS: "Brothers."]—I am speaking from this side of the House, with respect, and I would hate the right hon. Gentleman to be my brother. He would ruin my relationship for life. I would not mind if he said, "Look here, chums. We have this new Bill. We do not want to overload it and go too far". If the right hon. Gentleman said, "Let us work it for 12 months or two years and see how it goes," there would be a great deal to be said for it. But the sphere which he is excluding is the one which nine out of 10 hon. Members would like to see included. I say that because, in the majority of cases which arise in this sphere, satisfactory conclusions could be reached, particularly since the ombudsman will only arrive at the same conclusions when the Bill becomes operative.
  It is in matters of health that hon. Members feel inhibited, mainly because we do not like to be too critical and to investigate too far. Perhaps we are not ruthless enough in dealing with these problems. However, these are the problems with which the ombudsman should be particularly concerned.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: I regret the decision of the Government on this issue because public accountability is most important and elusive in matters affecting hospitals. The complaints which we receive from our constituents about these matters usually come at times of grief, anxiety and vulnerability. It would have been in the interest of the increasing feeling of democracy which exists in the National Health Service had the Government taken a different line on this matter. The Health Service belongs to the people. This element of public accountability should, therefore, have been increased rather than decreased.
  I am encouraged to make these remarks following my visit some months ago to Sweden, where I spent a great deal of time looking into the sort of cases with which the ombudsman there—and that is the right term to use for him—must deal. The hospitals and medical services are certainly not excluded in Sweden. Indeed, one might feel that they go to the other extreme.
  I was told of one recent case in which the ombudsman figured. A hospital administrator had refused to hand over to the father of a girl who had died in the hospital the complete file relating to her case, medical notes and all. The decision to refuse to reveal the file had been taken in good faith by those in charge of the hospital. In fact, they thought that the documents would distress the father. However, the ombudsman rebuked the hospital authorities and stated that the complete availability of information was the right of members of the public. Following that, all the documents were disclosed.
  I am not suggesting that in clinical matters we should go as far as our friends in Sweden. However, it is essential, if the public is to have confidence in the Parliamentary Commissioner, that at times of great stress in people's lives, they should feel that they can turn to him and have their doubts set at rest. Apparently this is not to be the case. I can only express the disappointment felt by a large number of people, particularly since nothing I have heard from the Government convinces me that there is adequate reason for this decision.
  11.15 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I raised this subject with the Minister in Committee. In New Zealand, Sir Guy Powles gave an example some time ago of the sort of difficulties he must face. He stated:
  "Arising from complaints which were not themselves substantiated, it came to my notice that patients were not always aware of the full extent and likely consequences of certain types of serious gynaecological operations ….
  He went on to examine this and then made his recommendations, which I think proved fairly satisfactory, and he did similar things in the health department.
  We have raised in the Committee some of the areas, which are very large indeed, and although we were told that it was quite easy for us to approach our boards or get in touch with hospital committees, in the area which stretches from Gloucester to Penzance this is very difficult, particularly as Bristol is not a very convenient centre for people to go to.
  The point to which I wish to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention is that which he prayed in aid in the Committee. He said, in column 434,
  "I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know that for many years there has been concern about the adequacy of the procedure for investigating complaints within the National Health Service, and in particular within the Hospital Service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has gone into this closely and he issued a new circular which some hon. Members may know about, on 7th March this year."
  He added:
  "In this hospital management circular, H.M. (66) 15, entitled 'Methods of Dealing with Complaints by Patients' he sets out very fully his recommendations to the regional boards and the hospital management committees on the way in which complaints should be handled."
  I think that in Committee none of the hon. Members—myself in particular—had heard of these recommendations, and we asked how this would work. We were told that it would be possible to have a lawyer to investigate these complaints. I should like to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman if he is going to pray in aid this circular again tonight.
  Mr. Crossman: I think the reference is 8th December, cols. 371–373, in reply to a

  1437
  Written Question. I think the substance of the circular was, in view of the interest aroused, published on 8th December.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I was asking it this is going to be prayed in aid as a reason for not including the Amendment in the Bill tonight. If we are not to have this, I hope that, anyway, the Amendment to the Amendment will be accepted because this would be a definite advance at the present time.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In the course of the debate we had on this subject in Committee I suggested that there was a way of reconciling the difference between the two sides.
  To some extent the Opposition Amendment to this Amendment goes some way, at any rate, towards bridging the gap. I believe there is a case for excluding from the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner's concern areas of clinical judgment which are frequently the kind of decision about which complaints in the hospital service are made, but where it would be extremely difficult for the Parliamentary Commissioner, unless he is provided with a very big qualified staff of medical practitioners, to make any kind of assessment. Therefore, on administrative grounds I think it would be difficult for him to intervene.
  But I think it goes further than that. I think there is at the moment a very special concern about the morale in the hospital service, and I disagree with my hon. Friend who tried to equate the position of the medical practitioner within the service with the veterinary surgeon who will come within the ambit of the Commissioner's work, or with an architect or some other professional person.
  I think at the moment there is a special crisis among medical staff in the hospital service and that we must pay attention to their morale. Therefore, I believe that if they are concerned that here is another official who may be investigating their work, we ought to bear that in mind in making a decision as to whether we could go to that extent at this stage.
  I have no doubt that we shall get over that crisis and that in due course that argument for excluding clinical judgment will pass away. I cannot see any difference between the kind of maladministration that takes place regularly within the hospital service and mal-
  1438
  administration taking place in any other Government Department.
  I listened to the somewhat cursory speech of my right hon. Friend the Lord President in which he said that the real argument was that the hospital service consists of an area of Government concern and an area of local government concern. There is a difference between the normal services provided and the subsidiary services. It has already been pointed out that that applies in other areas in which the Parliamentary Commissioner will work. Surely, it is not beyond the skill of this distinguished public servant to be able to judge where the boundary is to be drawn.
  When, however, my right hon. Friend went on to reply to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) to say that he was not suggesting that there should be a "little" Parliamentary Commissioner for the hospital service as well as a local government ombudsman, we got to the crux of the problem.
  If we are to say that when we appoint a local government ombudsman we shall be able to make the decision that the rest of the hospital service should come within the ambit of the Parliamentary Commissioner, we would be saying that we will be able to make a decision where the division should come. We shall have to make it at that stage instead of now.
  If we are to say that the local government ombudsman will take into consideration the whole of the hospital service, we could equally say at this stage that the Parliamentary Commissioner should also take into account the whole of the hospital service and leave that part of the local government area out of the purview of any local government ombudsman. We are faced with this difficulty of the divided control of the hospital service wherever we decide to make our stand. Therefore, this is not a good reason for trying to exclude the hospital service at this stage.
  I do not feel so forcefully about the matter that I would want to vote against the Amendment. I did not vote against it in Committee, for the reason that the Government conceded a major concession in that they took power, which has been accepted in a previous Amendment,

  1439
  to amend the Schedule by Order in Council at a later date. Experience may well prove that some of our criticisms were so justified that that power will be used.
  The sensible view is that all the evidence is in favour of taking the power at this stage. I am sorry that the Government do not see it in this light. I hope that as a result of these representations, they might be prepared to accept the Opposition Amendment.
  Sir L. Heald: In urging the House to support the Committee in its decision, I should like briefly to refer again to something which might encourage some hon. Members opposite who have spoken strongly about this matter to have the courage of their convictions by referring them to what was said by an eminent member of the Government, who is now Foreign Secretary, in an article he wrote in the New Statesman in 1964, in which he gave an advance view of the kind of thing that what he called the Labour Party's ombudsman would do. I have already referred to his reference to the discretionary aspect. There was to be no question of discretion. He said,
  "The Commissioner will be concerned with those episodes…where all the authorities have behaved correctly, yet the result is absurd or unjust."
  He went on to mention hospitals:
  "Further, there are cases involving…hospitals".
  He said,
  "There are cases…where evidence conflicts and the executive wishes to protect its servants. A tribunal under the 1921 Act may be too ponderous; yet the collective authority of parliament, rather than of a single M.P., may be needed to discover the truth. It is this collective authority which an ombudsman…would represent."
  We all respect the right hon. Gentleman in these matters as someone who has a great interest in the rights of individuals. There is not the slightest doubt that at that time he believed that it was the Government's intention to have an ombudsman who would deal with these matters. This point was raised on Second Reading. Unfortunately, the present Leader of the House was not present when I quoted the Foreign Secretary and no reply was made to the point which I raised in that debate. It is therefore perhaps not altogether surprising that we have the present difficulty.
  1440
  In view of the strong opinions which have been voiced on both sides of the House on what is not in the least a party question, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, who is also Leader of the House, might not show his democratic attitude by taking some notice of individual Members of Parliament. There has been a tendency lately, I am glad to say, which many of us have noticed, which indicates that the right hon. Gentleman is undertaking his duties as Leader of the House with more idea of the rights of individual Members of Parliament on both sides of the House than we have seen for some time, and I suggest that this is an occasion on which he might carry that a little further.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take note of the many contributions made on this question from both sides of the House and I hope that if he cannot accede to the request at this stage, at least the point which he mentioned—the possibility of extending the provisions to cover this field later—will eventually materialise.
  I speak as a member of a regional hospital board and with many years' experience as a member of a group hospital management committee. Within the hospital service there are quite a number of procedures to ensure that one is able to give a fair deal to the patient and also a fair deal in other administrative respects. Procedures are laid down which enable an employee or anyone else in the Health Service or in the hospital service to have his case duly examined. The procedures are very fair, but it is precisely because in other fields, where we have similar procedures, there is a need for a long stop when, after every procedure is exhausted there is still a feeling that justice has not been seen to be done, that there is a need for an ombudsman. This is equally important both generally and in the Health Service.
  I would go further than my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and say that I am not quite satisfied about the clear distinction between the clinical and the administrative. I believe that in both the hospital service and the Health

  1441
  Service we are sometimes inclined to be far too sensitive to what the doctors may feel. The patient, too, has his rights. I hope that it will be possible to extend these provisions, because every hon. Member knows, not only from his correspondence but from the many cases with which he deals in his bureau on Friday evening or Saturday morning, that this is an area which it was intended to cover by these provisions. Although my right hon. Friend may not be able to concede the point now, I urge him in his reply to make it clear that we can have an ombudsman for the hospital service.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Hogg: May I add my plea to that of numerous other hon. Members in different parts of the House? It is very late in the evening and we on this side fully recognise that the House has had two or three extremely long and trying debates within the space of only one week, on a varying set of subjects; and we agreed that we would not force Divisions after a certain hour. It is far beyond that hour now. We on this side imposed upon ourselves a self-denying ordinance, but when Parliament expresses a view so clearly and emphatically as it has on this Amendment, it would be very difficult for us to adhere to that resolution if the right hon. Gentleman does not give us some comfort.
  The Bill has to go to another place, and the Government often use the advantage of our bicameral system for making alterations in legislation, and if the right hon. Gentleman says that he has not closed his mind to these very serious arguments but will consider them more than hitherto, then we might well leave this in an amicable frame of mind. What is not possible is for a self-respecting House of Commons with an Opposition which is part of our constitutional framework to allow a matter of this kind to go unvoted upon unless the Government, through the right hon. Gentleman, show some signs of paying more attention to what has been said.
  Mr. Crossman: I should like to thank all those who have taken this matter so seriously even at this late hour. When I started n-y intervention I said that the strongest case so far had been made for the Amendment, but it is a misunder-
  1442
  standing for any hon. Member to say that it was not discussed in Committee. It was discussed very fully, and from the first it was known to be a major issue, and an issue upon which it was obvious that there are definitely two opinions. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said that we could take the whole hospital service, clinical and non-clinical, and that it would be damned good for the doctors to be treated in this way. Yet some people say that there could be no more unfortunate moment than this to introduce this kind of Motion. I can understand the motive of my hon. Friend, who has consulted me because he thought I was stubborn, but I must tell him and tell the House that I see very serious difficulties in making a separation between the clinical and the administrative sides. There is something in the case on both sides, but if one tries to achieve something for only one, then I think many cases would get argued out.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was right to remind us that the Minister of Health has recently issued Regulations for the redress of grievances in the service, and a strong argument exists for their being tried out before one can say if they are of any use. At a late hour such as this, when the House speaks so strongly, no Minister would do anything but take the House seriously and think very carefully over what has been said. I must say here that what I said about the future in the case of local government, as I showed during the Second Reading of the Bill, is that it is made out because local government has its own organisation away from the centre. The Health Service is not part of that, and I said that this was an "in or out" issue at the moment.
  I also emphasised that we had put our Amendments in so that if, in the course of time, it is felt necessary this House can decide, by a negative Order to bring the whole hospital service within the Act. The powers are there, without any change in the Act. That is true. Certainly I will consider this while it is going to the other place, and we will discuss it once again with the Minister of Health, who has very strong and considered views on the subject.

  1443
  If, as I anticipate, we are not able to concede fully on the matter, the House will have a second defence. It has the power to make a change if it is felt that we have been wrong on this matter.
  On the whole issue, I would say in conclusion that we are running here what has been called an experiment. We have been careful to draw the experiment narrowly. If it has been drawn too narrowly, we have the chance in the Bill of expanding the area.
  I am grateful to the House for putting it in such a good tempered and thoughtful way, and I would ask hon. Members now if we might conclude our deliberations on this part of the Bill.
  Sir J. Hobson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not want to mislead us, but it is not the position that the House can deal with this. The House can only control an Order in Council. The House could not pass a Resolution altering Schedule 2. It is only the Government who can introduce an Order, and the House could then control it.
  Mr. Crossman: That is perfectly correct. The Government could introduce the Order, but the House could take a view on the Order.
  Mr. Hogg: I am anxious to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, if at all possible. Did he give us an assurance that he will reconsider reinserting some form of Amendment at a later stage?
  Mr. Crossman: I gave the assurance that between now and its passage through another place, in view of what has been said here, we will certainly reconsider this and discuss it with the Minister of Health. This is an important issue. It is not an easy one at all. However, the position needs reconsideration, and we will certainly give it that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 13, line 25, at the end to insert:
  'being transactions of a government department or authority to which this Act applies or of any such authority or body as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 6 of this Act and not being transactions for or relating to—

  (a) the acquisition of land compulsorily or in circumstances in which it could be acquired compulsorily;

  1444

  (b) the disposal as surplus of land acquired compulsorily or in such circumstances as aforesaid.'

  The Amendment is designed to meet two points which I agreed to look at further as a result of our discussions in Committee.
  Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 excludes all action taken in matters relating to contractual or commercial transactions from investigation by the Commissioner. That was criticised as being wide wording, on two counts. The first was that the exclusion relates not only to commercial transactions to which the Government or public departments are a party, but also Government action in relation to contracts between purely private parties.
  The second class was cases where land was acquired under negotiation, but negotiations where the acquiring authority had powers of compulsory purchase. The point was raised by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that these were not true commercial transactions, because when one side negotiates with powers of compulsory purchase behind it, it puts the parties on a quite different footing. Both those points are met in the Amendment, and actions taken by the Government in relation to transactions between private parties will now be in. These would include, for example, action taken by the Department of Economic Affairs in relation to private transactions under the prices and incomes policy, by the Board of Trade exercising its powers under the Companies Acts or in relation to proposed mergers, or action taken by the Registrar of Friendly Societies in relation to building society contracts. That is not an exclusive list, but it illustrates the kind of activity which is covered.
  The other kind of case would cover not only action in relation to the acquisition of land, but also its redisposal—what I would call the Crichel Down type of case.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Hogg: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 13, line 26, to leave out
  'appointments or removals, pay'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): It would be convenient also to

  1445
  take Amendment No. 35, in page 13, line 27, Leave out
  'superannuation or other personnel matters'.
  Mr. Hogg: This is a horrible subject to have to explain at this hour, but I think I can do so fairly lucidly. Both Amendments affect paragraph 9 of Schedule 3. Paragraph 9 lists as being excluded from an investigation
  "Action taken in respect of appointments or removals, pay, discipline, superannuation or other personnel matters, in relation to—"
  three classes of public servants, if I may use the term in a non-technical sense.
  Clearly, discipline is not amenable to this kind of investigation. That I think, we are all agreed about. The three classes of public servants, although they are lumped together in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), are really people not in the same categories as one another. Subparagraph (a) covers
  "…the armed forces of the Crown, including reserve and auxiliary and cadet forces; "
  Sub-paragraph (b) covers the Civil Service, roughly speaking. Sub-paragraph (c) includes persons who are employed under contracts for services—a phrase which I do not propose to embark on at this hour but which will be familiar to members of my profession—and those who give services which do not ordinarily rank as service in the sense of regular employment as a servant.
  Frankly I do not think the three categories of persons involved under paragraph 9 are exactly in the same position as one another as respects all these words in the Amendments. If it were thought right by the Government to accept in principle some of the thinking behind the Amendments, I would be content if they were redrafted so as to exclude the Armed Forces from the question of appointments or removals, because one must recognise not merely that the Armed Forces are in a different category as regards discipline, but also that the grievances procedure inside them is of a different kind and in some ways more comprehensive than other procedures.
  To take the strongest case, I cannot see why, if the Parliamentary Commissioner is to be of any value to any one at any time, he should not be able to investigate maladministration connected with superannuation and pensions and
  1446
  matters of that kind, together with personnel matters generally, provided, of course, one recognises that, by the time one reaches paragraph 9, maladministration has a very narrow interpretation.
  If there is to be any justification for the operations of the Parliamentary Commissioner, this is exactly the sort of thing, amongst others, that he should be looking into. I apologise for the slightly truncated nature of my remarks at this hour.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. MacDermot: I shall try to emulate the brevity of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), not out of disrespect but because of the hour. The subject matter of the Amendments was fully debated in Committee, and I refer any hon. Members who want fuller argument to that debate.
  The Amendments would, first, bring within the Parliamentary Commissioner's scope all matters other than strict questions of discipline within the Armed Forces—the whole range of personnel matters. Secondly, they would bring in virtually all matters of internal relations within the Civil Service. I need not dwell on the third class, in paragraph (c), which is rather narrow, relating particularly to police and teachers, where action to be taken may be approved by a Minister.
  The principle on which we have taken our stand on both the Armed Forces and the Civil Service is that our intention is that the Commissioner shall deal with complaints about the relationship between the Government and the governed, and that internal matters within the Government are not for this procedure. There are other and, we believe, adequate procedures for dealing with them. If they are not adequate, they can be ignored.
  In the Civil Service we have the Whitley Council machinery, which has a very long history and has commanded respect not only in this country but all over the world. We have very carefully worked out safeguards for civil servants in that machinery. The argument which I regard as most telling, and on which I put great weight in Committee, is that the staff side of the Whitley Council machinery is content with that procedure and do not wish the Parliamentary Commissioner procedure to be imposed upon their sphere.

  1447
  Entirely different considerations apply to the internal relationships in the Armed Forces, as compared with the Civil Service, let alone those of the Government and the governed. If it is felt that the existing procedures for investigating complaints are inadequate, that is a matter to raise on the defence debates. All hon. Members have experience of taking up complaints with Service Ministers, and I find that I tend to get rather further with constituency cases relating to the Armed Forces than with many other Departments.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the exclusion should apply to superannuation and pension matters. It can be argued that it should not apply, since we are dealing with people who, ex hypothesi, have left the service and are private individuals. But the answer is that the subject matter of the complaint, namely, superannuation or pension rights, still derives from and relates to their relationship of service as former Government servants. If we tried to include them in the way suggested, that would itself produce anomalies, because many superannuation matters, like other Civil Service conditions of service, are discussed and negotiated with the staff side. It does not regard this as being different, and the same is true of police and teachers' pensions.
  Superannuation questions are often closely linked in the Civil Service with such questions as establishment, redundancy, efficiency and conduct, and there would be great difficulty in admitting superannuation while those matters remained excluded.
  I feel that I am already trespassing on the time of the House. I urge the House to reject the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I do not think that at this hour the House will want a long Third Reading speech. I merely express my own personal gratitude to hon. Members for what has been from my own point of view an
  1448
  extraordinarily interesting Bill to pilot through the House. I hope that the Bill will shortly become law and we shall be able to start on a quite considerable experiment in our system of Government.
  We said at the outset that we felt that certain basic principles on which the Bill was framed were cardinal and that we would stand firm on them, but that subject to that we hoped to be flexible and meet the wishes of the House. I hope that the House will feel as a result of the Report stage today that we have met a number of valuable criticisms of the Bill during Committee.
  I pay tribute to the assistance which we have had during this phase of passing the Bill through the House from the Parliamentary Commissioner-designate. It has been of very great help to us to have his advice on a number of points and, as I informed the House, one of the Amendments which we accepted today was the result of a suggestion which came from him.
  When the Bill has passed through another place and become law, the next matter to which we shall have to give our careful attention will be the establishment of a Select Committee, which will be necessary to receive the reports of the Commissioner and to give assistance to him and the House in our relations with him.
  At one time or another much has been said about the Commissioner being a servant of the House. It is important to remember that in another sense he will be not a servant, but an officer of the House. We are establishing a post with a status equivalent to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General under a Bill which vests him with considerable powers and authority and discretion. These are matters which we should put fairly and squarely on his shoulders.
  I am sure that when it is set up the Select Committee will respect his independence and seek to assist him in his task. Having chosen to set up a Parliamentary watch dog, I am sure that we will not want the Select Committee to start trying to do the barking for him. As I said earlier, I conceive that by and large the Select Committee will not be concerned with the investigation of or concerned with the investigations or the reports on particular individual cases. What it will be concerned with is in

  1449
  helping to work out the procedures and, in particular, the conventions which we must de vise among ourselves as hon. Members in handling complaints which are to be referred to the Commissioner and, secondly, in receiving his reports and seeing what kind of action we need to take as Members of Parliament to put right situations which are brought to light by his investigations.
  I believe that this will prove to be a useful and valuable Bill and I commend it to the House.
  11.54 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I found the Committee stage of the Bill interesting, but, not being a lawyer, I found it at times a little difficult to follow. I am worried about Clause 5, which will put an enormous responsibility on the individual hon. Members concerned. We are now to be a channel through which complaints will go, and I think that it will be extremely difficult for hon. Members to decide which should be the case to be sent on to the Parliamentary Commissioner. In Committee, many of us found that the Financial Secretary did not agree that the examples which we suggested were the types of case which ought to be sent on.
  I foresee that there will be a further difficulty. It says here that a complaint must go through a Member of Parliament. Suppose somebody comes to me, as a Member of Parliament, and I, rightly or wrongly, decide that I am not going to send his complaint on. He can then go to another Member of Parliament. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that we have to devise some conventions amongst ourselves. I think that that will he extremely important.
  We have been told that the Commissioner will be a sharp instrument. I think some Members may find it is too sharp an instrument, because it may spoil the relationships which exist between a Member and his constituents. For example, suppose someone comes to me and I suggest to him that his complaint is not the type of case which should go to the Parliamentary Commissioner, and he goes to another Member of Parliament who does send the complaint on, and it is investigated, and it is found that I was entirely wrong. If that sort of thing happens constituents will lose
  1450
  confidence in their Member of Parliament, and that is the thing which worries me about Clause 5.
  So I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman may consider issuing, anyhow at the beginning, some form of leaflet of instruction to the public on the type of case they should bring to their Members for sending on to the Commissioner, and to Members as well, so that they understand what type of case should be sent on. Otherwise I think most of us may in complete fear send on every case we receive, particularly if constituents who bring them are persistent.
  If a Member sends on a case and it is successful from the complainant's point of view, then there will be a danger that that Member may be thought by many people to be a successful Member and they may decide to send all their complaints to him, because they think he is more knowledgeable than other Members.
  I am also nervous that this may become a party political think if we are not careful. It is thought by many people that a Member of Parliament of the Government party has more chance of getting things done than has a Member of the Opposition party. Therefore, this may become a party matter.
  I do not want to say anything more, because these are the points which I wanted to draw to the attention of the House tonight. I hope we may find some way to preserve the good relationships which Members have with their constituents. I hope everything will be done to encourage constituents to come to their own Members of Parliament, anyhow at first, and that a convention may grow up that if a Member receives a complaint from a constituent not his own he will refer it to that constituent's own Member and refer the constituent to his own Member.
  For there is yet another danger—that a person may circulate 630 Members at one time with his complaint. I do not know how this will be safeguarded against. If we get this kind of handout —some of us have already had it—in regard to complaints, there may be some way in which we can perhaps get together and consult the Commissioner about whether he has had many requests from that individual on a particular case. I

  1451
  hope that we may have some guidance in future, so that the particular relationship, which I think we all value, between ourselves and our constituents should not be broken down by unnecessary overlapping in taking up cases.
  In conclusion, I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for being so helpful in Committee. Perhaps he will consider the points which I have raised now.
  11.59 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I hope the fears of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) will be allayed to some extent by the way in which the Select Committee works. I hope that that Select Committee will gradually work out a procedure whereby these difficulties are ironed out.
  I do not want to detain the House at this hour for very long, but it would indeed be churlish if at this stage someone from these benches who has so consistently criticised various parts of the Bill were not to pay some tribute to the very fact that this Bill has been introduced and is being passed into law, because this Commissioner is the greatest aid to the liberty of the subject, in his relationships with the State, to have been provided since 1947, when the former Labour Government introduced the Crown Proceedings Act.
  It would be wrong to give the impression, simply because some of us at various stages have said that some of the exclusions were too wide, that there is nothing for the Parliamentary Commissioner to do. In fact, the whole field of Government is open to inspection and criticism by the Parliamentary Commissioner, and this will have profound effects upon the relationship between the individual and the State. This is one of the most important Bills which has been before this House since the Government came into power. I congratulate the Government on introducing it and seeing that it goes through.
  It is perhaps unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) suggested at an earlier stage that the Bill is unduly restrictive. That comes ill from one who was Attorney-General in a Government which consistently refused to
  1452
  introduce the measure, even after the Whyatt Committee had reported in favour of it. The Bill gives power to a Parliamentary Commissioner which is even wider than that suggested by the Whyatt Committee. I believe that this will be one of the really important developments in the history of the relationship between the individual and the State.
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Hogg: I am just as agnostic about the virtues of this Bill as I was at the beginning. It is not a question of party politics; it is a question of judgment, and my judgment has always been against it. It is against it now.
  I recognised from the start that this was an experiment which the public wanted and which probably the House wanted and, therefore, was an experiment which we should not obstruct. Therefore, although I do not believe in it, I wish it well. It is as well that I should say why I do not believe in it now any more than when it was first canvassed. There has been no change of opinion on my part in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's mutterings now and the occasion when, even this evening, he twitted me for a change of opinion.
  Anyone who contemplates an office of this kind is faced with the dilemma of making it either a Frankenstein or a nonentity—a Frankenstein if it has effective powers and a nonentity if it has not. The Government, quite rightly, has opted for its being a nonentity, and in that sense it is a fraud.
  One can look at the actual terms of the Bill, on Third Reading, the most significant being the exclusions in Schedule 3 and the carefully drawn language of Clause 5 which prevent anything worth discussing by this procedure from being discussed at all. A Frankenstein would have been a great deal worse, I congratulate the Government on its being a nonentity. A Frankenstein would, I think, have undermined the power of Ministers and would have undermined the authority of individual Members of Parliament. That, I am quite sure, is not to be.
  I noted the exclusions, by which I mean the contents of the Bill—not the things which are not in it but which ought to be in it, which would be out of order

  1453
  now, on the occasion of the Second Reading. My ultimate conclusion about this Bill is that it is a noble facade without anything behind it. It is like the holy water on Mount Athos—"It'll do ye nae hairm and it'll do ye nae guid".
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Buchan.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Urwin added.—[Mr. Lawson.]

  TEES-SIDE AIRPORT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: I am very pleased to have an opportunity even at this early hour of the morning to discuss a matter of vital importance to all those who are concerned with establishing good communications between Tees-side and other conurbations in this country and throughout the world. Teesside airport is situated about four miles from my constituency. It is, in fact, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Joseph Slater), who played a creditable part in the initial stages of the development of this civil airport.
  The airport is controlled by a joint airport committee representing local authorities in the region. I pay tribute to the efforts of the committee, under the chairmanship of Alderman Boothby of Middlesbrough. It has spent about £400,000 on developing the airport, which will now stand comparison with any of similar size in the country. The technical facilities are modern. Its runways will take jet aircraft. It has recently had new bright and modern terminal buildings erected, and a first-class hotel
  1454
  has recently been completed at the airport.
  In October last year, B.K.S., which operated a scheduled service from Teesside to Heathrow, advised the joint airport committee that it wished to withdraw, and, until the end of the year, the service was operated jointly by B.K.S. and B.E.A. In the meantime, the Air Transport Licensing Board considered applications from B.E.A., British Eagle and Autair International Airways for a licence to operate the service between London and Tees-side in place of B.K.S. At its meeting on 7th December, the Licensing Board decided to grant the licence to Autair International Airways.
  I have my own views on the wisdom of that decision, but I recognise that, under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Regulations, 1964, the parties to the case, that is, B.E.A., British Eagle, the British Railways Board and the Tees-side airport joint committee, have the right to appeal to the Board of Trade against the decision of the A.T.L.B. Until the time for lodging an appeal has expired or, alternatively, until the Board of Trade has determined the appeal, it would not be proper for me to enter into discussion of the merits of the various applications. There will be an appeal in which all parties will have opportunity to state their case before the appeals commissioner. I recognise, therefore, that the Minister could not listen to arguments which would be outside the statutory procedure of appeal.
  I shall not discuss the granting of the licence to Autair, but I wish to focus attention on the decision of this company, having been granted the licence, to operate the service from Tees-side to Luton and not Heathrow, which was formerly the terminal of B.K.S. The decision to make Luton the terminal point was not that of the Air Transport Licensing Board. In its evidence to the Board, Autair said that it was prepared to fly into Heathrow provided that it was directed to do so by the Board, but its own preference was for Luton. The licence was not granted for Luton only, and Autair could, if it wished, terminate its London flights at Heathrow. The decision, therefore, rested entirely with the operators.

  1455
  Let us consider the consequence of this company's decision to use Luton instead of London. Luton is 32 miles from London. Travelling from there to the North London terminal at Swiss Cottage will take at least an hour, and probably considerably more in peak traffic periods. Following that there will be a tube journey from Swiss Cottage into Central London which will take another 15 to 20 minutes. How many passengers will be prepared to make this journey, particularly when British Rail have said that from March of this year trains running from Darlington to London will complete the journey in 3 hours 10 minutes, and at half the cost of air travel?
  There is, at least, an element of choice for passengers to London, and the airline can win passengers only if its service is considerably quicker than other forms of transport, but this is not the only aspect of the matter. What about the passenger who wishes to connect at Heathrow with planes for America or Europe? B.K.S. estimate that about one-third of its passengers to Heathrow were inter-line passengers merely changing planes at Heathrow in order to board planes going abroad. This estimate may well be on the low side, because, from a survey taken last September, it seems that 43 per cent. of passengers from Tees-side to London were inter-line passengers making a change at Heathrow. It is difficult to imagine all these passengers opting to fly to Luton and then having to face a journey of perhaps 75 minutes or an hour and a half to get from Luton to Heathrow.
  It is important to realise the number of passengers who will be inconvenienced by these new arrangements. It is necessary, if this matter is to be looked at in perspective, to give some idea of the volume of passenger traffic from Teesside. If B.K.S. had not withdrawn its services last October, about 100,000 passengers would have passed through Tees-side. Of these, about three-quarters, that is 75,000 people, travelled to Heathrow. If we take 40 per cent. of the total number of passengers as representing those who want to connect with other planes from London, this means that on the 1966 estimate about 30,000 passengers a year will have to put up with wasted time, frustration, and per-
  1456
  haps missed flights, as a result of the decision of Autair to terminate its services at Luton.
  Even with the limited experience that we have of the service to Luton, it is apparent what is happening. From the 1st to 15th January of this year, that is two weeks, 647 passengers were carried on the Luton run, either to Tees-side or from Tees-side. In the corresponding period of 1966 the number of passengers from and to Heathrow was 1,201. The freight figures are even more alarming. For the two weeks which I have mentioned, in 1966 freight traffic totalled 16,700 kilos, but this year it dropped to 4,460 kilos. These figures are not likely to give any confidence to those who are looking forward to the expansion of the airport, and it is difficult to understand why, in the face of public opinion, the firm has adopted this policy of terminating its London run at Luton.
  The explanation is that Autair has a repair depot at Luton. I also understand that the firm has an interest in the North London Air Terminal at Swiss Cottage. Nevertheless, the Air Transport Licensing Board did not grant a license for the convenience of the company but for the convenience of the travelling public. How can the company establish a viable business on Teesside if the climate of hostility is such that it is unable to get passengers?
  There is a tremendous outcry against the firm's decision. The North Economic Council and the North-East Development Council have recorded their regret at the decision, as have many of the local authorities in the area, as well as the Airport Joint Committee, chambers of commerce, many businessmen and organisations, many hon. Members who represent the North-East and myself. Scores of letters have been received protesting about this decision.
  A Motion signed by practically every hon. Member who represents North-East constituencies may appear on the Notice Paper tomorrow protesting against this decision. What steps has Autair taken to consult public opinion in the matter? What must we do to convince the firm that it is not only in the interest of the North-East as a development area, in the interest of the travelling public and in the long-term interest of the firm

  1457
  that it should change its decision? What can we do, other than campaign for the withdrawal of the license, so that Autair is left in no doubt that public opinion is overwhelmingly against Luton as the London air terminal? It must be made clear that such a campaign will be mounted unless it has second thoughts on the subject.
  I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as being in any way hostile to Autair, particularly since the reports I have received show that it is an efficient company, that its aircraft fly to schedule and that the service which it provides is praiseworthy in every way. The hostility arises from the fact that the firm has made the wrong decision in flying into Luton instead on into London.
  What prospect is there of getting the management to change its mind? The managing director of Autair stated in the local Press, speaking about ending the London terminal at Heathrow, that he was prepared to do that
  "…if, in the light of experience…there is an overwhelming demand for Heathrow".
  The figures I have quoted show that there is certainly not an overwhelming demand for Luton. How will he judge the demand? What "light of experience" does he wish to consider? Will it be judged by the number of people who do not use the new service? If that is the result and if the service to Luton is a flop, as it seems might happen, it will be difficult to prove anything by afterwards switching to Heathrow, since many of the firm's potential customers will have made other arrangements, perhaps travelling by rail to, say, Newcastle or Leeds for some of the journey.
  Another factor is that if the firm does not fly into Heathrow it will lose the slot it now has to take aircraft into Heathrow from Tees-side. The slot, between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., will be allocated to another airline if it is not established quite quickly.
  The only conclusion to be drawn, if the service from Tees-side to Luton fails, is that Tees-side does not want a London service. That is the conclusion that might be drawn by the Air Transport Licensing Board. But Tees-side is not being offered a London service. It is being offered a service to a town in Bed-
  1458
  fordshire, which is 32 miles from London and which, in the estimation of many businessmen, will add two to three hours' travelling time to the journey. It would, therefore, be more sensible for Autair to fly into Heathrow—and then, if there is an overwhelming demand for Luton, it could transfer there, but it is unlikely that such a transfer would need to take place.
  Because some of my hon. Friends would like to contribute to this debate, I will restrict my remarks.
  There is to be an appeal. If the appeal is to be heard, will the Minister make arrangements for it to be heard as early as possible? We understand from the Press that it may be August before the appeal is heard. We would like reconsideration to be given to the whole question of the licence between Tees-side and London, and we want this matter settled not in the far distant future but as early as possible. Would my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that this will be speeded up and that if applications and appeals are sent in they will be heard at the ealiest possible moment?
  I want finally to stress that there is an overwhelming feeling among all sections of the population in and around Tees-side that we are highly dissatisfied with an air service which terminates at Luton. I hope my remarks, and perhaps some others which hon. Members may make tonight, may convince the firm that they are wrong and should have second thoughts about this matter.
  Mr. Timothy Kitson: I rise to support the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. T. Fletcher) in everything he has said this evening. We in the North-East are extremely worried by the decision of Autair to fly into Luton.
  I think we have all been approached by many companies in the North-East which are using Tees-side for flying on to the Continent and other parts of the world. Tees-side, which is now a great exporting centre in this country, has tended to develop Tees-side Airport for connection with other overseas flights from Heathrow.
  I think many of us are extremely worried by some of the statements made by the Air Transport Licensing Board.

  1459
  After the decision to allow Autair to fly into Luton they said in a somewhat strange statement that although it takes longer to get from Luton into London, "one can get out of an airplane quicker in Luton." That does not give much satisfaction to anyone flying from Tees-side to London.
  They went on to say that if this application had been made for an entirely new service instead of for a replacement for the one formerly operated by B.K.S., it would probably have been refused because of the excellent British Rail services from Darlington. Many of us quite frankly think this is disgraceful because there are a great number of people who are using Tees-side Airport for flights on to the Continent, particularly for holidays and business.
  This is one of the great advantages. One can fly from Tees-side and connect at London Airport with a flight to the Continent, which saves all the problems of getting across London with luggage.
  I think it is true to say that practically every major firm on Tees-side is objecting to these proposals. I, like the hon. Member for Darlington, have no wish to criticise Autair as a company, but unless—and this is most important for the Minister to realise—they take up their slot at London Airport we may lose the opportunity of flying into Heathrow in future. This would be an extremely unsatisfactory decision for Tees-side Airport, and I hope the Minister can have the appeal heard in the very near future so we can get this problem sorted out.
  12.25 a.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: I express, very briefly, my complete support for all that has been said so far in the debate, and particularly my gratitude—indeed the gratitude of the whole area—to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) for initiating the debate.
  The ground has been well covered and the case has been excellently argued. I ask the Minister to take whatever steps are open to him—perhaps with the Heathrow scheduling committee—to ensure that this time slot at Heathrow is kept available until the issue is finally determined. It is in the highly desirable 9 a.m. period which other operators are desirous of having. If this one dis-
  1460
  appears, it might well be that no future air service from Tees-side could satisfactorily operate to Heathrow.
  May I also make the point to my hon. Friend that this whole problem illustrates the crying need for a regional airport authority and a regional plan. I hope that this is something that will emerge.
  12.26 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): The House will understand that I have considerable difficulty in replying to this debate, for reasons which I will mention. One point, however, on which I have no difficulty is in fully supporting the statements that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has made about the airport at Middleton St. George. I am new in this job but I know enough to realise that it is a first-class airport. It has first-class runways and hangars, a new terminal building and even an hotel. It has developed extremely well under the very good initiative of the Tees-side authorities. My hon. Friend mentioned the consortium of 11 or 13 local authorities which have got together to develop the airport.
  In passing, I would say that this very good airport would be even better if the Tees-side authorities could possibly get together with a similar consortium on Tyneside and work those two airports, not in competition, but in co-operation.
  On the substance of the case which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn), I regret that I am unable to make any comment, for the obvious reason that there is still the possibility of an appeal from the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board. For the Board of Trade, therefore, the issue is sub judice.
  If an appeal is lodged we shall go through the usual procedure of appointing an independent commissioner, who will then report to the President, and it will be up to my right hon. Friend either to accept or to reject the recommendations of the commissioner. The Board of Trade is, therefore, somewhat in the position of a judge, and it would be most unwise and indelicate of me to make

  1461
  any comment about either the findings of the Board or of the present decision of Autair to fly into Luton.
  I was, however, pressed, very rightly, to do whatever I could in the event of appeal to ensure that the appeal was held quickly. It is necessary to allow a little time before the hearing of the appeal to give the chance to anybody who wants to appear before the commissioner to prepare evidence and to produce new evidence if necessary. It is also necessary to have a little time for the hearing and for the preparation of the report and then consideration of it.
  We in the Board of Trade will certainly do whatever we can to make sure that there is no avoidable delay in coming to a decision. It depends, however, not only upon us; it depends upon the appellants preparing their case quickly and present-
  1462
  ing it. For the Board of Trade, I am most willing to give the undertaking that we shall do whatever we can to get a decision in what is obviously a very important matter.
  Mr. Tinn: Would the Minister please see what can be done to meet a point which I put to him—to make representations to the Heathrow Committee to ensure that the time slot is kept open?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry that I did not deal with that point. I am not absolutely sure whether we have any powers to give any direction. I think that we have not. But I will see that the point is made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  Machine Tools (Government Establishments)
  Machine Tools (Government Establishments)
  Research (Anglo-German Talks)
  Research (Anglo-German Talks)
  Computer Industry
  Computer Industry
  Television Rental Companies (Costs and Charges)
  Television Rental Companies (Costs and Charges)
  National Electronics Research Council
  National Electronics Research Council
  Hovercraft Development Limited (Engineers)
  Hovercraft Development Limited (Engineers)
  Departmental Staff (Scientific and Technological Degrees)
  Departmental Staff (Scientific and Technological Degrees)
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Requirements)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Requirements)
  Board of Inland Revenue (Inspectors)
  Board of Inland Revenue (Inspectors)
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Government Office (Christmas Holiday)
  Government Office (Christmas Holiday)
  British Petroleum and Distillers Company Ltd. (Merger)
  British Petroleum and Distillers Company Ltd. (Merger)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Amerada (Sale of Government Interest)
  Amerada (Sale of Government Interest)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Private Portfolio Investment (Market Value)
  Private Portfolio Investment (Market Value)
  National Savings Certificates (Interest)
  National Savings Certificates (Interest)
  Surtax
  Surtax
  Interest Rates (Discussions)
  Interest Rates (Discussions)
HOUSING
  Completions (Target)
  Completions (Target)
  Rent Officers (London Boroughs)
  Rent Officers (London Boroughs)
  Rent Office (Letter)
  Rent Office (Letter)
  Housing Programme, Crawley (Services)
  Housing Programme, Crawley (Services)
  Fair Rents (Lambeth)
  Fair Rents (Lambeth)
  Three-Bedroom Council Houses (Cost)
  Three-Bedroom Council Houses (Cost)
  Statistics
  Statistics
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board (Application)
  Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Board (Application)
  Education and Police Services (Exchequer Grants)
  Education and Police Services (Exchequer Grants)
  Local Expenditure (Exchequer Grants)
  Local Expenditure (Exchequer Grants)
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Malta (Talks)
  Malta (Talks)
  Rhodesia (African Opinion)
  Rhodesia (African Opinion)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  India Office Library
  India Office Library
  Ghana (External Debt)
  Ghana (External Debt)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  European Coal and Steel Community
  European Coal and Steel Community
  Fuel Policy
  Fuel Policy
  Petrol (Zoning)
  Petrol (Zoning)
  Nationalised Fuel Industries (Return on Capital)
  Nationalised Fuel Industries (Return on Capital)
COAL
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  Output
  Output
BOARD OF TRADE
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Motor Insurance Companies (Failures)
  Motor Insurance Companies (Failures)
  Cost of Living (1965 and 1966)
  Cost of Living (1965 and 1966)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Newsprint (Substitute)
  Newsprint (Substitute)
  Monopolies Commission ("The Times" and "The Guardian")
  Monopolies Commission ("The Times" and "The Guardian")
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Unemployment (Dorset)
  Unemployment (Dorset)
  Sugar Commission (Report)
  Sugar Commission (Report)
  University College, Salisbury (Grant)
  University College, Salisbury (Grant)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Rootes Motor Company
  Rootes Motor Company
  Price Increases (Notifications)
  Price Increases (Notifications)
  Carlisle-Solway Area (Development)
  Carlisle-Solway Area (Development)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Overseas Students (Currency Receipts)
  Overseas Students (Currency Receipts)
  Department's Telegraphic Address
  Department's Telegraphic Address
  Public Libraries (Authors' Remuneration)
  Public Libraries (Authors' Remuneration)
  Primary Schools, West Sussex
  Primary Schools, West Sussex
  Comprehensive Education (Oswestry)
  Comprehensive Education (Oswestry)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT (SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING)
  GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT (SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING)
  CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
  AFRICAN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (DISCUSSIONS)
  AFRICAN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (DISCUSSIONS)
  SOUND BROADCASTING (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  SOUND BROADCASTING (ROYAL COMMISSION)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Heifers (Imports from Ireland)
  Heifers (Imports from Ireland)
  International Exhibition, Leningrad
  International Exhibition, Leningrad
  Welsh Farms (Application of Lime)
  Welsh Farms (Application of Lime)
  Agricultural Contractors (Selective Employment Tax)
  Agricultural Contractors (Selective Employment Tax)
  Salmon Disease
  Salmon Disease
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Chief Surveyor of Defence Lands (Letter)
  Chief Surveyor of Defence Lands (Letter)
  Married Quarters
  Married Quarters
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  DISARMAMENT (INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATIONS)
  DISARMAMENT (INTERNATIONAL CONSULTATIONS)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children (Local Authority Care)
  Children (Local Authority Care)
  Foster Children
  Foster Children
  Botswana and Lesotho (Political Refugees)
  Botswana and Lesotho (Political Refugees)
  Albany Prison, Isle of Wight
  Albany Prison, Isle of Wight
  Member of Parliament (Prisoner's Letters)
  Member of Parliament (Prisoner's Letters)
POST OFFICE
  Palace of Westminster (Postal Franking Machines)
  Palace of Westminster (Postal Franking Machines)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks (Smoking)
  Kiosks (Smoking)
SCOTLAND
  Highland Transport Board (Report)
  Highland Transport Board (Report)
  Inshore Fishing Fleet (Subsidies)
  Inshore Fishing Fleet (Subsidies)
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
RAILWAYS
  Low Level Station, Wolverhampton
  Low Level Station, Wolverhampton
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Seat Belts)
  Motor Vehicles (Seat Belts)
ROADS
  Al (Concealed Junction)
  Al (Concealed Junction)
  Classified Roads Programme
  Classified Roads Programme
PORTS
  Bulk Grain Terminals
  Bulk Grain Terminals
  Bulk Grain Carriers (Draught and Tonnage)
  Bulk Grain Carriers (Draught and Tonnage)

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

SOUTH-EAST PLANNING AND BANBURY EXPANSION
2.36 p.m.
LORD ELTON: 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 the recent admission by the Standing Conference on London and the South East Regional Planning—that, in the light of the 1961 Census, many of the assumptions on which national planning in the regions has hitherto been based have proved to be wholly erroneous—has altered the attitude of the Government to such local plans as that to expand the population of Banbury to 80,000.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Report to which the noble Lord refers is devoted mainly to an analysis of data from the 1961 Census on employment and migration. It suggests that if this data had been available earlier the conclusions of the South-East Study might have been different, but makes no specific suggestions. The Study was reviewed by the present Government in 1965, by which time much of the information mentioned in the Standing Conference Report was either available or known in broad outline. The Report does not alter the Government's view about the size of the London overspill problem and the scale of the New Town and town expansion programme which is needed. A decision about the expansion of Banbury is a matter for the borough council. They know that the Minister would like the expansion to go ahead.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Answer?

LORRY AND COACH DRIVERS' HOURS
LORD ELTON: 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 propose to take further action designed to check the illegal practices by which drivers of passenger and goods vehicles are enabled to operate for much longer hours than the law permits, thus frequently becoming a danger to other users of the road.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has already announced (and I refer to her statement of yesterday) she is reviewing the present statutory limits on the working hours of drivers of lorries and buses. Particular attention is being paid during this review to the improvement of methods of enforcing observance of the limits.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask if he is able to say whether it is likely that authority will be given to Ministry of Transport inspectors to examine wages sheets and consignment records, without which it would seem that they are not likely to have much success in controlling excess driving hours?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is quite clear that the present methods of examining the performance of drivers, the time they work, is not satisfactory, and therefore there is a radical review covering all forms of control, and in particular the opportunities for inspectors to obtain the necessary information to see that the law is enforced.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether there is going to be an increase in the number of these inspectors, and, if so, is my noble friend Lord Shepherd able to say how many?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, not at this stage. I hope my right honourable

415
friend will be able to make a Statement in the not too far distant future, and I think the noble Lord will find from that Statement that there has been a radical review to see that the enforcement of the law is carried out
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend try to guard against intimidation of the employee, where a man has to drive long hours because he fears that he will get the sack if he does not do so?
Loan SHEPHERD: My Lords, the main aim for the Government in this matter is to see that the law is enforced. Clearly, if a driver is intimidated by his employer to break the law then he must be given the necessary protection. Our first and paramount aim is to see that the law is enforced.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I ask a question about a matter which seems particularly difficult to deal with: that is, the so-called "moonlighting", where a person is doing two different jobs, one or both of which involve driving?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have had no experience of "moonlighting": I thought it was something to do with the old bootlegging. But I will certainly take note of the point that the noble Lord has made. The whole matter is being most carefully and exhaustively reviewed.

RHODESIA: SALISBURY UNIVERSITY
2.40 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of any changes made within the past three months in the constitution or personnel of the Board which allots scholarships in the University of Salisbury, Rhodesia; who made such changes and on what dates, and whether they consider that such changes are consistent with academic freedom, with equality of opportunity as between students of different races or with any conditions upon which Her Majesty's Government authorise contributions to or for the benefit of the University.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, the Rhodesian Scholarships Board, which is concerned with the award of Government grants to students of all races obtaining places at the University College, has recently been reconstituted by the Rhodesian Ministry of Education. It formerly comprised a majority of non-officials, including two representatives of the University College, and was chaired by a High Court Judge. The new body is a board of trustees consisting solely of officials of the Ministry of Education. It remains to be seen whether these changes have any adverse or limiting effects. So far the University College has been free to select its students solely on the basis of their academic qualifications and merits. Until it is known what grants have been made for admission of students in the next academic year at the beginning of March, it will not be possible to express a view on the points referred to in the last part of the noble Lord's Question.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend Lord Beswick for that Answer, may I ask him this further question? Is it not the case that the Rhodesian Ministry of Education and its representatives are part of a treasonable and illegal régime; and in those circumstances are the Government of opinion that it is desirable, for instance, to continue grants to a University which in this respect appears to be run by the representatives of the illegal régime? And do they think it consistent with the considerations I put forward in my Question?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government think it desirable to have a University College operating there so long as the Ministry's representatives fulfil the objectives which were set before the College at the outset; and so far there has been no evidence that they will depart from these objectives.
With regard to the more specific aspects of my noble friend's remarks, the Rhodesian Scholarships Board, about which he asked his Question—and I have already given some details—is not the body responsible for governing the College. That is a separate body and, as

417
I indicated to my noble friend Lord Brockway last week, the College Council have said that they do not propose to be intimidated by any political Party.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I appreciate that it is the College Council which runs the College, but is it consistent with academic freedom and with the supposedly multiracial character of the university, that the Board which appoints people for scholarships consists of civil servants, so-called, who are the representatives of a treasonable régime pledged, as I understand it, to a uniracial attitude? Whether the Government wait a little or not, do they really intend to continue grants when this position exists as regards these scholarships, which will presumably depend to some extent on money provided by the Government of this country? To put the matter quite succinctly, the British lion's tail is being twisted, and we pay for teaching people to do it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I put it to my noble friend that there is a balance of argument here. Some people have argued, as my noble friend has done, that the grants must stop. There are others who have argued, with equal sincerity, that it would be a mistake to stop the grants at this point of time. Those people, including Her Majesty's Government, who are not unmindful of the considerations brought forward by my noble friend, nevertheless feel that for the time being it would be wrong to withhold the grant. However, it will certainly be a matter for further consideration, when the next quarterly instalment becomes due, as to what has been done so far about giving grants to Africans.

MALTA
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Beswick will be making a statement on changes in the defence forces in Malta.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
2.45 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Disclosure by companies as regards certain gifts of money for charitable purposes, of amounts thereof and identities of donees or purposes of gifts
".—(1) Where, in the case of a financial year, a company is under obligation to comply with subsection (1) or (2) of section 18 of this Act (otherwise than by virtue only of it or, as the case may be, it and its subsidiaries between them, having given money for political purposes), then,—

(a) if in that year money exceeding £50 in amount has been given by it or, as the case may be, by it and its subsidiaries between them, for charitable purposes to one person only, it shall, on and after the day on which copies of the directors' report relating to that year are first sent to members of the company in compliance with section 158 of the principal Act, keep at its registered office a statement of the name of that person (or, if the money was received by him in a fiduciary capacity, of the purposes for which it was given) and, in either case, the amount of money given;

(b) if in that year money exceeding £50 in amount has been given as aforesaid to each of two persons or more for charitable purposes, it shall, on and after the said day. Keep at its registered office a statement of the names of those persons (or, in the case of any of them who received money in a fiduciary capacity, the purposes for which it was given) and of the amount of money given in each case.

(2) The said statement shall, during business hours (subject to such reasonable restrictions as the company may in general meeting impose, so that not less than two hours in each day be allowed for inspection), be open to the inspection of any member of the company without charge.
(3) Any member of the company may require a copy of the said statement, or of any part thereof, on payment of two shillings, or such less sum as the company may prescribe, for every hundred words or fractional part thereof required to be copied.
The company shall cause any copy so required by any person to be sent to that person within the period of ten days beginning with the day next following that on which the requirement is received by the company.
(4) If default is made in complying with subsection (2) of this section, or if an inspection required under this section is refused or any copy required there under is not sent within the proper period, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £500 and further to a default fine.
(5) In the case of a refusal of an inspection required under this section of the said statement, the court may by order compel an immediate inspection thereof; and in the case of a failure to send within the proper period a copy required under this section, the court may by order direct that the copy required shall be sent to the person requiring it.
(6) Subsections (4A) and (5) of section 18 of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as they have effect for the purposes of that."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment constitutes a new clause and gives effect to the alterations in the method of dealing with charitable contributions which this House discussed under Amendments 28 and 33 yesterday, on Clause 18. Therefore, I think I can deal with a weighty clause fairly quickly. Subsection (1) states, in effect, that the clause applies to a company which in a financial year has on its own or together with its subsidiaries given more than £50 to each of one or more persons for charitable purposes. Such a company is required to keep at its registered office a statement of the name or names of the person or persons to each of whom more than £50 was given and of the amount given to each. Subsection (2) provides that the statement shall be open to the inspection of any member of the company without charge. Subsection (3) requires the company to supply to members only, on demand and on payment, a copy of the statement or any part of it. Subsection (4) provides penalties to which a company and its officers will be liable if an inspection of the register is refused or if a copy is not sent. Subsection (5) empowers the court to compel a company to permit an inspection of the statement. Subsection (6) excludes money given for charitable purposes to a person who, when the money was given, was ordinarily resident abroad, and states the meaning of the term "charitable purposes". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Polwarth is not here, and I am sure he would like me to say to the noble Lord, on his behalf, and indeed on behalf of all of us on these Benches, that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for having
420
included this clause, which I think completely meets the arguments put forward on this issue.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Unlimited companies may be re-registered as limited]:
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 51, which is purely a drafting Amendment to Clause 32. Subsection (2) referred to the alterations in the memorandum. Subsection (4)(b) should also refer to the alterations and not to the alteration, in the singular.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 27, leave out ("alteration") and insert ("alterations").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:
Shares of no par value
".—(1) The authorised capital of a company may consist wholly of shares having a nominal or par value or wholly of shares without nominal or par value, but not partly of the one and partly of the other.
(2) Every certificate for shares without nominal or par value shall have plainly written or printed upon its face the number of such shares which it represents and the number of such shares which the company issuing it is authorised to issue and, where the shares are partly paid, the amount paid on each share; and no such certificate shall express any nominal or par value of such shares.
(3) Where a company issues shares without nominal or par value, whether for cash or otherwise, a sum equal to the aggregate amount or value of the consideration payable for those shares shall be transferred to a capital account, to be called "the stated capital account"; and, where the shares are issued for a consideration other than cash, the value of the consideration shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be assessed by the directors of the company.
(4) The provisions of the principal Act relating to the reduction of the share capital of a company shall apply as if the stated capital account were the paid-up share capital of the company, except that the stated capital account may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, be applied by the company in writing off—

(a) the preliminary expenses of the company; or

(b) the expenses of, or the commission paid on, any issue of shares or debentures of the company.

(5) Where under subsection (4) of this section amounts standing to the credit of the stated capital account of a company are applied in writing off expenses or commission, a note

421
of the expenses or commission written off shall appear in the company's balance sheets for two years afterwards.
(6) A company the shares of which are without nominal or par value may, by special resolution, increase its stated capital account by the transfer to that account of sums from the profits of the company or its reserves.
(7) A company may by special resolution—

(a) convert all its shares having a nominal or par value, whether fully paid or not, to shares without nominal or par value, so, however, that after the conversion the proportion between the amount paid and the amount, if any, unpaid, on each share shall be the same as, before conversion;

(b) convert all its shares which are without nominal or par value, provided they are fully paid, to fully paid shares having a nominal or par value, so, however, that after the conversion the aggregate nominal value of all the issued shares of the company shall not exceed the amount standing to the credit of the company's stated capital account immediately before the conversion;

and may alter the conditions of its memorandum accordingly.
(8) Where a company converts all its shares having a nominal or par value to shares without nominal or par value, a sum equal to the aggregate amount of the paid-up share capital of the company together with the amount, if any, standing to the credit of the company's share premium account, shall be transferred under appropriate headings to the company's stated capital account.
(9) Where a company converts all its shares which are without nominal or par value to shares having a nominal or par value—

(a) the aggregate nominal value of all the issued shares of the company immediately after the conversion shall be transferred from the stated capital account to the paid-up capital account of the company; and

(b) if immediately after the conversion the aggregate nominal value of all the issued shares of the company is less than the amount standing to the credit of the company's stated capital account immediately before the conversion, an amount equal to the difference shall be transferred from the stated capital account to the share premium account of the company.

(10) In the case of a company the share capital of which is divided into different classes of shares, the exercise by the company of any of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall require the sanction of an extraordinary resolution passed at a separate meeting of the holders of the shares of each class; and section 72of the principal Act shall apply as it applies to the variation of the rights attached to any class of shares.
(11) Where a company the shares of which are without nominal or par value has passed a resolution for reducing its share capital under section 66of the principal Act, and the proposed reduction of share capital involves the payment to any shareholder of any amount standing to the credit of the company's stated capital account, section 67 of the principal Act
422
shall apply as if the reduction involved the payment to a shareholder of paid-up share capital.
(12) In relation to a reduction of the share capital of a company the shares of which are without nominal or par value—

(a) subsection (1) of section 69 of the principal Act shall apply as if for the words "the amount of the share capital, the number of shares into which it is to be divided, and the amount of each share", there were substituted "the number of shares, the amount, if any, at the date of registration, deemed to be unpaid on each share";

(b) section 70 of the principal Act shall apply as if for the words "the difference, if any, between the amount of the share as fixed by the minute and the amount paid, or the reduced amount, if any, which is to be deemed to have been paid, on the share, as the case may be," there were substituted the words "the amount, if any, which, as shown by the minute, is to be deemed to be unpaid on the share".

(13) The principal Act shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Amendments of the Companies Act 1948 consequential on the introduction of Shares of No Par Value) to this Act.
(14) Every company which mentions the amount of its authorized capital or the number of shares which it is authorized to issue in—

(a) any business letter of the company;

(b) any notice or other official publication of the company;

(c)any order of the company for goods;

(d) any bill of parcels, invoice, receipt or letter of credit of the company;

(e) any trade catalogue, trade circular or show card which is issued or sent by the company to any person in any part of Her Majesty's dominions,

shall state in that document in legible characters and with no less prominence—

(i) the amount of the company's issued share capital or, in the case of a company the shares in which are without nominal or par value, the number of shares issued and the amount of the company's stated capital account; and

(ii) the amount, if any, unpaid on the company's issued share capital."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this new clause provides for the structure of the no-par-value shares system, and I should like to say briefly what it does. Subsection (1) follows the Gedge Committee recommendation in compelling companies to choose whether the whole of their capital is in no-par-value shares or in shares with a nominal value. Subsection (2) is taken from the Companies Act of Canada, 1934, Section 12(9), and, I think, is a sensible provision.
Subsections (3) to (6) deal with the capital account of a company whose

423
shares are of no par value. Subsections (7) to (9) provide for the conversion of shares of nominal value into shares of no par value and vice versa. Subsection (10) requires the consent of all classes of shareholders to such a conversion; and subsections (11) and (12) deal with a reduction of capital. Subsection (14) is of some interest because it extends to all companies, whether they have shares of nominal value or no par value, and it provides that whenever a company makes reference to its authorised capital it must make an equally prominent reference to its issued and paid-up capital, because sometimes that is in very small type and people are misled by the size of the authorised capital. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Exemption from sections 6 to 8 and 17 of this Act and section 196 of principal Act in respect of Companies or bodies corporate whose shares are not quoted on a recognised stock exchange or offered to the public
".—(1) Section 127 of the principal Act (documents to be annexed to annual return) shall have effect subject to the following subsection.
(2) A company shall not be required to annex to the copy of the balance sheet which is annexed to the annual return a statement showing the information referred to in sections 6, 7 or 8 of this Act or in section 196 of the principal Act nor shall be required to include in the copy of the directors' report attached to the balance sheet annexed to the annual return the information referred to in section 17 of this Act, if no shares or debentures of the company or of a body corporate of which it is the subsidiary have been quoted on a recognised stock exchange (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere) or offered (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere) to the public for subscription or purchase."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the new clause on the Order Paper. The purpose of this clause is to implement the Jenkins recommendation in paragraph 351, to which reference has been made at Committee stage, which says:
"To meet this … well founded objection to general disclosure we would give a limited exemption to companies whose securities have been neither quoted nor offered to the public
424
and which are not subsidiaries of companies whose securities have been quoted or offered to the public. While requiring such companies to circulate full accounts to their members and their debenture holders, we would permit them to exclude from accounts Sled with the Registrar of Companies:—

(i) the information about directors' emoluments now required by section 196;

(ii) the details of turnover and rents receivable and payable which we suggest below should in future be required by the Eighth Schedule."

This clause is drafted to cover Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 17. Clause 6, deals with particulars of emoluments of chairmen and directors in the £2,500 band; Clause 7 with particulars of emoluments waived; Clause 8 with particulars of salaries of employees receiving more than £10,000; and Clause 17 with turnover in different classes of business done. It therefore covers quite a large part of the recommendations made by Jenkins, and also some recommendations that he would no doubt have made if he had known that particulars of salaries of employees receiving more than £10,000 a year were to be called for.
The Amendment also makes clear that the information in question must be circulated to members of the company, but need not be annexed to the annual report and accounts which have to be filed with the Registrar. In the course of our earlier discussions I think we made it very clear that we accepted the Jenkins Report in this respect. Of course, any company, even though its shares are not quoted or not issued to the public, will be able, if it should so wish, to attach its directors report in full to the annual report and accounts. This merely exempts it from the necessity to do so so far as emoluments and the classes of turnover are concerned. We agree with Jenkins, because we think that the disclosure of this information to small localised companies may be a source of embarrassment, and indeed a definite trading prejudice in certain cases. The arguments were fully gone into at the earlier stage, and I do not think I need repeat them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: My Lords we have, I think, a fairly basic division of opinion between the Government and

425
some Members of this House over this matter, and it really centres on two main things. First, the Government are concerned to have to the maximum extent possible one class of limited liability company, and not two with different provisions. Secondly, the Government are concerned to disclose a much wider range of information to the general public than those who oppose some parts of this Bill. This again is a manifestation—it has appeared frequently in our debates on this Bill—of this basic division of viewpoint on the matter. There are, as I have said before, many large unquoted companies which are important to our economy, and we believe it is important that the sort of particulars that appear in Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 17 should be available to the public at large. We believe that creditors are entitled to know many of the facts that would appear publicly under these clauses; and we believe that if a company is going to claim the privilege of limited liability, which on the whole has been awarded a little too lightly in the past, then this is not an unfair condition to impose.
Lastly, we are concerned about incomes policy. Of whatever political persuasion one may be, there is going to be a definite requirement for some sort of discipline about incomes and wages in the future in our economy; and we know to-day that there are a large number of people in society who have quite exaggerated ideas about the sort of emoluments earned by directors, built up on the examples of a few very unfortunate cases which make the headlines from time to time. It would be an excellent thing, in our view, if there were more daylight let in on the real remuneration of directors and their arrangements, and so on. It is on these grounds that I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, because this is a matter of fairly basic principle which has been debated throughout the clauses of this Bill, and it would be very difficult for the Government to give way on this particular Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the weight of argument in the course of our debates in the Committee stage, in terms of those who spoke, at any rate, was very much in favour of following Jenkins. When one has had a Report which has gone so deeply into these affairs over a period of years, I
426
think one must attach full weight to the recommendations and findings of that Report.
One must concede, of course, that the effect of this Amendment would be that some large unquoted companies would be able to avail themselves of the exemption which the clause would allow. But against that one has to weigh the very many small companies which would be able to avail themselves of the exemption, and for whom the exemption is particularly designed. This is the balance of advantage. We on this side think it is not wise, on a matter of this kind, to go too fast or to make too sudden a break with the past. The noble Lord has said that there will be another Companies Bill in a couple of years. The sensible thing, surely, is to take one step at a time, to see how the thing runs in the next two or three years, whenever the next Bill may come, and to allow this Amendment to be accepted by the House in the meantime.
The noble Lord referred to the incomes policy. No doubt it is desirable that exaggerated views of what directors earn should be corrected. Indeed, this was an argument I adduced in the other sense. But the fact is that in regard to the vast number of small companies which would then have to report emoluments if this Bill were carried through, the information about the chairmen's salaries would never filter through into the Press. Unless the Government were themselves to tot up the figures and give some statistics about this, it would never come through to the general Press. There would still be only isolated examples, and again and again there would be evidence of considerable local embarrassment to the chairmen and directors of companies whose salaries were disclosed. If the Government want this information, surely there are far more efficient and effective ways of obtaining it than to cause it to be put into the directors' report. For that reason, if for no other, I would recommend my noble friends to support this Amendment.
3.2 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I suppose that nothing can prevent the Tories from dividing this House on a question of this kind; it is so obviously the kind of thing they like. But I think they have not thought sufficiently about

427
what has happened since the Jenkins Report. There has been a good deal of what one can call, quite frankly, dirty practice about companies. On the whole, it has not been the big companies; it has been the smaller ones. Compliance with these provisions is the concession required from companies in return for limited liability. Limited liability gives them the privilege, in certain circumstances, of limiting their liability to their creditors, and, as I see it, these provisions are really for the protection of creditors; otherwise, a small company run by some rogue can grossly overpay the rogue without anybody knowing what has happened. That is what these provisions are intended to prevent, or to take a step towards preventing, for it is perfectly clear that more than this may be required.
But, says the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, why not leave things as they are and wait until the next Companies Bill comes along? There are two answers to that. One is that there is a certain urgency about the matter, and—for I see noble Lords anxiously consulting the Jenkins Report—an urgency and anxiety which has arisen or been aggravated since that Report. The second is that this, or something of this kind, is an old-standing provision. If one looks at the clause here, it is Section 196 of the principal Act which has requirements about disclosing directors' salaries. Those were brought in, I should have thought, for good and sufficient reasons by the Government of the day. What is now proposed by noble Lords opposite is not to leave things as they are but, as regards this kind of company, to avoid not only the provisions in this Bill which we are considering but also provisions which have been in force since 1948. I suggest that that does not amount to leaving things as they are at present.
Is there any real reason against this being done? Why this passion for the dark? What is it that these companies have done that noble Lords opposite think ought to be concealed, and why? I quite understand people objecting occasionally to too much disclosure, on business grounds and the like. But there is no question of business grounds here. This is substantially what the directors are getting out of it; and I think that
428
the ordinary public, if they wish to know and take steps to know, ought to be allowed to discover, and there ought to be no right to hide it.
With respect to noble Lords opposite, I would say that this passion for hiding everything seems to be growing on people. I cannot see the reason for it, and I wonder whether some noble Lord, in reply, would tell us why they are so anxious to do this. Is it merely to save people trouble? I think that is an insufficient reason, in the case of the provisions in the Bill, as it was counted to be in respect of the corresponding provision in the 1948 Act, and I urge noble Lords opposite to "make these companies come clean". I would agree at once that the vast majority of them have nothing to hide that they need be ashamed of; but there are exceptions, as we have seen lately, and we ought to take this precaution in the interests of the public.
3.5 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I had thought that one or two other noble Lords might wish to contribute to the debate, but since that is apparently not the case I would apologise to your Lordships for having arrived a few minutes late on this particular section of the debate. I am glad to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, in regard to some of his points. The interesting point about what the noble Lord opposite had to say about disclosure was that he himself was a passionate advocate of the Land Commission's not disclosing their reasons for doing certain things. The noble Lord really should consider what he is after in this idea of disclosure. I do not wish always to bring into the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but as he has been kind enough to be with us again this afternoon perhaps I should remind him of what I said during the Second Reading debate on the Bill; and it applies particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who is also a distinguished Queen's Counsel. I said that I should greatly like to know about barristers' fees, but they never tell us what their fees are. If directors' emoluments are to be disclosed, let us hear about the emolument of barristers. If there are a few naughty directors—and I expect there are—there are one or two barristers who may be a little

429
sharp in their practice. Does the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, really suggest that we should be able to control barristers better if their fees were to be disclosed?
We on this side of the House accept that in the running of companies there should be a disclosure of matters which are properly in the public interest; but this must not just become a kind of parrot cry, that everything must be disclosed because the alternative is the secrecy which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, says is so reprehensible in company practice. We must be sensible about this matter. I am afraid that noble Lords on the opposite side of the House are running away with the idea that anything short of full disclosure—which at times appears almost to be indecent exposure—is in some way reprehensible and against the interests of the country as a whole. This is not the point. The point is that there should be a reasonable balance between disclosure and nondisclosure, and Lord Mitchison's contention that, in return for the benefit of limited liability, disclosure must be made without any limit at all (because that is how I listened to his argument) is not an argument which can be sustained.
Limited liability has been the right of any corporation setting itself up as a limited liability company. Such companies set themselves up knowing, first, what the limited liability was, and secondly, how much would have to be disclosed in their accounts. Now, suddenly, in the middle of the game, the rules are to be changed; and apparently, according to the reasoning of the noble Lord, because a new benefit is being created of limited liability, therefore a great deal of disclosure is now to take place. There is no justification at all for this great increase in disclosure. We on our side of the House stand by Jenkins. We think that he went as far as it was necessary to go. While the noble Lord may say that conditions have changed since the Jenkins Report (and I agree that they have changed: we have a Labour Government instead of a Conservative Government; and we have many other things), by and large, limited liability companies behave in the same good and respectable way now as they didthen—with one or two exceptions of which I am sure Lord Jenkins, was cognisant at the time he was writing his Report.
430
I would remind noble Lords what the Jenkins Report said on this very important matter. Paragraph 351, on page 137, says:
"We recognised, however, that some information required in the accounts, while of interest to the members, was not of prime importance to creditors, and that its public disclosure by some small companies might be embarrassing to them; we had in mind particularly the requirement to disclose directors' emoluments. To meet this, in our opinion, well-founded objection to general disclosure we would give a limited exemption to companies whose securities have been neither quoted nor offered to the public and which are not subsidiaries of companies whose securities have been quoted or offered to the public. While requiring such companies to circulate full accounts to their members and their debenture holders, we would permit them to exclude from accounts filed with the Registrar of Companies: the information about directors' emoluments … and the details of turnover and rents receivable …"
In putting this forward by this Amendment, all we are doing is to follow the Jenkins recommendations.
LORD SHEPHERD: Because it suits you.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, interjects: because it suits us. This is not a Party matter. This is a matter of trying to improve the Company Law of the country. I am sorry that the noble Lord seeks to inject Party bias into the matter. This is not a Party matter. We are trying here to ensure that the doctrine of limited liability will be able to continue to flourish in this country and do in the future the great good for this country that it has done in the past, with the minimum of damage to the small companies, many of whom in the past have been able to become great companies. That is why we stand by the Jenkins' doctrine in this matter, and we hope that when this Amendment goes to a Division, if the Government will not accept it, noble Lords will support us in the Lobby.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the noble Lord is continually saying that his Party go all the way with Jenkins. I think that the Jenkins Report was issued in 1962. If that is the view the noble Lord's Party take, I wonder why the previous Administration did not do something about implementing Jenkins over this matter.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I get

431
one point clear? The argument against this Amendment, as I understand it, is based on consideration for the creditors of various companies. As the position stands at the moment, directors' emoluments are disclosed in the company's balance sheet, and I fail to see how the creditors' position is made either any better or any worse by knowing that director "A" has so much and director "B" a different figure. I cannot follow the argument which is being put forward here.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I intervene to clarify this point? It is true that the total of directors' salaries and emoluments appears on the balance sheet, but the new provision for disclosure of salaries of directors in brackets—that is to say, from £2,500 to £5,000; £5,000 to £7,500; and so on—appears in the directors' report and is not available to the public unless it is filed at Company House.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord wanted to know why, and he has not received an answer.
LORD BROWN: I rose to clarify the matter. I have not risen to answer the point because I shall be accused of speaking twice on the Report stage, as I was yesterday.
LORD CARRINGTON: I was only pointing out, I hope courteously, that although the noble Lord rose to reply to the point, he has not in fact replied to it.
LORD BROWN: With respect, the noble Lord was under a misapprehension in thinking that the figures we are talking about are already given in the report. They are not, and I wanted to correct that misapprehension.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord was referring to the blance sheet.
LORD BROWN: I have not sought to argue the case, for the reasons given.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to put in one sentence, and one only? The obligation to disclose directors' salaries and the like arises at present under Section 196 of the 1948 Act, which this Amendment proposes to repeal in part.
3.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, has referred to what I said on Second Reading, may I say that I do not withdraw a word of it? We live in days of an incomes policy when everybody's income is, quite naturally, of interest to everyone else. I personally should have no objection at all to the incomes of all professional men, or for that matter anyone else, being recorded. But what we are dealing with primarily here is credit, which all the time, and indeed since the Jenkins Committee reported, tends to expand. It is not long ago since every barrister was always sent a cheque with the brief, but this practice gradually dropped out and now it is sometimes a year or two before he is paid. But the barrister, unlike a small limited company, is not a person who normally owes money in the course of his profession. Solicitors do, because they owe money to the barristers; but barristers do not owe money to anybody. But it is with the small company which turns out to be insolvent that we are concerned. We are concerned with the position of creditors.
I would suggest, as I think I suggested on Second Reading, that the whole history of Company Law shows that it is fatal to grant exemption to a particular kind of company in relation to disclosure. Originally we did this as between the public and private companies, thinking that the private companies would be small family concerns. Then we found that everybody with anything to hide was a private company. We did it again as between the private company and the exempt private company, and we said. "If we limit the definition, we shall find that the exempt private company is just a small family concern". Whereupon everybody with something to hide became an exempt private company. I should have thought that that history was itself sufficient warning against creating a new kind of exemption, as this Amendment would seek to do. It is solely in the interest, apparently, of the directors—it is not suggested that it is in anybody else's interest—that this Amendment is moved. I venture to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in view of everything that has been said, will reconsider this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, can we not give leave to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, to answer properly the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, because I, for one, fail to understand why it is better from the point of view of creditors to know what the individual directors and highly-paid employees receive. Secondly, I should have thought that if these companies were going to cheat over this matter, they would only delay the publication of their annual report even more than they do at the moment. I cannot see that it protects creditors in any way. I can see that if there are any outside shareholders that they might be very interested in this information, but that is exempted by the way the new clause is drafted.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am happy to answer the question. It seems to me obvious that there are a large number of small companies which are honestly run and in which the directors draw appropriate and not too big amounts, and all is well. But equally, there are a minority of companies where those who run them are drawing extortionate amounts from the companies; they build up a very large balance of credits, and they suddenly go broke. It is in the interests of creditors that they should see whether they are offering credit to a company which is mismanaged in this way and which is being exploited by its directors. It seems to me that even if there is only a tiny minority of these companies, it is very important indeed that the public and those who offer the credit should be protected from these practices. We have had too much of this sort of development emerging in society recently. There have been too many scandals reported in the newspapers, and it is very important that we should take every reasonable step open to us to limit the possibility of people doing things such as this. That is why we want these disclosures.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt before the noble Lord sits down, but he still has not answered the question. I quite understand that the creditors would be very interested if they found that the directors in a small company were being paid a total sum of, shall we say, £40,000. But of what interest is it to the creditors to know that
434
£20,000 of that goes to one man, £10,000 to another, with two further sums of £5,000? What they are interested in is the fact that they think the whole board are being paid too much, and that appears in the balance sheet. I cannot see what further information the creditors will get out of this. That is a point which has not been explained, and as the noble Lord has not yet sat down perhaps he would deal with that point.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, I do not think that in the case of the small, tiny company, this is of interest. If the creditors are aware of the total amount being paid, well and good, and they can get that from the balance-sheet filed at Companies House. But in the case of the bigger companies, I think it is of importance. I do not rest only on that point as the noble Lord is well aware, because I am also interested in the further incomes point. I will not try to argue that again, because that would be taking advantage of the question and having a second go. But I think it is of importance that the creditors should know whether one or more of the directors are exploiting the position by drawing extortionate salaries.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, be-for the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I just say this? I was sitting through yesterday's Report stage, and I think most noble Lords who did so would feel that our Report stage was developing very much into a Committee stage. My noble friend was forced, out of courtesy to the House, to intervene on three or four occasions yesterday, and I think this is wrong. Certainly it is a bad habit, and I think it is against the general procedure in a Report stage. I know that it is hard to conduct a Bill of this nature, but I think it is wrong to put my noble friend into a situation where he is breaking the Rules of the House. To use the phrase—although I know it is done—"Before the noble Lord sits down" when, clearly, he has sat down, is I think in some ways an abuse. It can be done on some occasions, but for it to be done continually is wrong.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment on this subject, although I have spoken for a

435
very short time already, to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I think that there is a tendency for a Report stage to become a Committee stage; perhaps we are sometimes at fault, and I think we were at fault yesterday. But I would put this to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords opposite. On this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Brown, perhaps because he did not understand the question, or misunderstood it, or (dare I say it?) did not know the answer, did not answer the questions which three noble Lords put to him. Therefore, it is very difficult for noble Lords on this side of the House, when they are being asked by their colleagues on their Front Bench to divide, to make up their minds on the merits of the issue, when a question which is as important as the one which was asked is not answered by the Minister responsible for the Bill. This puts us in a very difficult position. I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right, and that from the procedural point of view we were probably at fault, perhaps yesterday and to-day. But I would put it to him that if he could encourage his colleagues to answer the questions which are asked, we should have less of this difficulty.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there may be occasions when those who sit on
the other side of the House, and we on this side who once sat on the other side, feel it opportune not to understand what has been said by the Minister. It is a very useful debating point. I can understand the difficulty of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in this matter. Perhaps we could break the Rule to this extent. If my noble friend would like to reply to this point now, we could complete this Amendment and then stick strictly to the Rules of Procedure.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was rising only to ask the noble Lord whether he was aware that the point which he and his noble friends have made, that Section 196 of the principal Act would be repealed by the Amendment, is quite untrue?
A NOBLE LORD: Of course not.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Not at all. If the noble Lord will look at the Amendment, at what it does, and the qualifications which it makes, he will find that Section 196 is not touched in any way whatsoever.
3.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Albemarle, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Alport, L.

Falkland, V.

Mersey, V.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Atholl, D.

Ferrier, L.

Monson, L.

Auckland, L.

Forbes, L.

Morrison, L.

Boston, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Brocket, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Sackville, L.

Buckton, L.

Godber, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Helens, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Coleraine, L.

Harlech, L.

Salisbury, M.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hereford, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strange, L.

Daventry, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ilford, L.

Teynham, L.

Derwent, L.

Ironside, L.

Thurlow, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Vivian, L.

Dudley, L.

Kilmany, L.

Willingdon, M.

Dundee, E.

Limerick, E.

Windlesham, L.

Effingham, E.

Lloyd, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

MacAndrew, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Royle, L.

Archibald, L.

Hurcomb, L.

St. Davids, V.

Arwyn, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shackleton, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Inman, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Snow, L.

Blyton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Soper, L.

Bowles, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L.

Brockway, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stow Hill, L.

Brown, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Burden, L.

Mitchison, L.

Strang, L.

Chester, Bp.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor, L.

Elton, L.

Pargiter, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Faringdon, L.

Peddie, L.

Uvedale of North End, L

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wade, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Piercy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Granville-West, L.

Popplewell, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Wise, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 36, to insert the following new clause:
Increase of maximum charges of registers of debenture holders, debentures trust deeds and registers of members
".—(1) Section 87 of the principal Act shall be amended as follows:—

(a) in subsection (2) (which entitles any person to a copy of the register of holders of debentures of a company or any part thereof on payment of sixpence for every hundred words required to be copied), for the words 'on payment of sixpence for every hundred words required to be copied' there shall be substituted the words 'on payment of two shillings, or such less sum as may be prescribed by the company, for every hundred words or fractional part thereof required to be copied'; and

(b) in subsection (3) (which entitles a holder of debentures of a company to a copy of the trust deed for securing the issue thereof on payment in the case of a printed deed of the sum of one shilling or such less sum as may be prescribed by the company or, where the trust deed has not been printed, on payment of sixpence for every hundred words required to be copied), for the words 'one shilling' there shall be substituted the words 'four shillings' and, for the words 'on payment of sixpence for every hundred words required to be copied' there shall be substituted the words 'on payment of two shillings, or such less sum as may be prescribed by the company for every hundred words or fractional part thereof required to be copied'.

(2) In section 113(2) of the principal Act (which entitles any person to a copy of, or of any part of, the register of members of a company on payment of sixpence, or such less sum as the company may prescribe, for
438
every hundred words or fractional part thereof required to be copied), for the word 'sixpence' there shall be substituted the words two shillings'."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Brown. I think the substance of the Amendment has been covered already by the discussions which took place on the Amendments to Clauses 28 and 30. Section 87 of the principal Act entitles any person to a copy of the register of debenture holders, or a part of it, on payment of 6d. for every hundred words required to be copied, and it also entitles a debenture holder to a copy of the trust deed on the same terms except where the trust deed is printed. If it is printed, the debenture holder is entitled to a copy on payment of 1s. Subsection (1) of the new clause increases the charge of 6d. to 2s., and the charge of 1s. to 4s.
Section 113 of the principal Act provides for copies of a company's register of members. Subsection (2) of the new clause increases the permitted charge from 6d. per hundred words to 2s. As in the case of Clauses 28 and 30, I think it was suggested by the Opposition that it should be increased from 6d. to 2s. 6d. We have increased it to 2s., which I submit is a reasonable amount, and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 36, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I again thank the Government for this Amendment? It is obviously desirable

439
that there should not be an anomaly between the old legislation and the new, and this brings the two together.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 18 of principal Act
". In section 18 of the principal Act (change of name of company) there shall be inserted after subsection (2) the following sub-sections—
'(2A) Where the Board of Trade is of opinion that the name by which a company is registered is likely to convey a false or misleading indication of the activities of the company or of the nature of the goods supplied or services performed by the company the Board of Trade may at any time so inform the company in writing, specifying the reasons on which they base their opinion and affording the company an opportunity of making representations to the Board of Trade thereupon either orally or in writing, as the company may prefer; and the Board of Trade may, after considering any representations that the company may make, direct the company to change its name within such period as the Board of Trade may specify, not being less than thirty days.
(2B) Any person aggrieved by a direction given under the foregoing subsection may appeal to the High Court (or, in Scotland, the Court of Session) within thirty days from the issue of the direction, and the Court may make an order confirming or setting aside the direction or substituting there for such order as it may think fit.
(2C) If any person fails to comply with a direction given under subsection (2A) of this section or an order under subsection (2B) of this section, as the case may be, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to a fine of £5 for every day during which the default continues.
For the purposes of this subsection, the expression "officer" shall include any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act.' "
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause follows paragraph 456(o) of the Jenkins Report, and is very much in line with the clause which was moved by my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood during the Committee stage of the Bill. Paragraph 456(o) says:
"the Board of Trade should be empowered to direct a company to change its name at any time if the name has become misleading in such a manner that it is likely to cause harm to the public. There should be a right of appeal to the Court."
During the discussions on Committee stage (OFFICIAL REPORT: 19/12/66, col.
440
1933) the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack mentioned the five criteria which the Board of Trade follow in applying Section 17 of the principal Act, which says:
"No company shall be registered by a name which in the opinion of the Board of Trade is undesirable."
The most important of these criteria for the protection of the consumer seem to be: first, is the name pretentious, or does it give a false indication of the nature of the company; and, secondly, is it likely to lead to confusion, either by being identical with a registered trade mark not the property of the company or through close resemblance to the name of an existing company?
Section 18(2) of the principal Act permits the Board of Trade, within six months of registration, to direct a company to change its name if it is too much like the name of an existing company; but, as I pointed out during the Committee stage, it is not easy for the Board of Trade to exercise these powers because at the time of registration it is difficult to know with certainty exactly what the activities of the company are likely to be. The memorandum of the company will go very wide, and it is difficult for the Board of Trade to know exactly which of the activities mentioned in the memorandum are those on which the Company is going to concentrate.
My Lords, in paragraph 454 of their Report the Jenkins Committee said this:
"Experience has shown that this power,"—
they were talking of the power in Section 18(2), to which they had just referred—
"which is very infrequently used, is necessary to rectify mistakes, and we agree that it should be extended to cover undesirability on any ground. We also think that the Board of Trade should be given power to direct a company to change its name at any time if the name has become misleading in such a manner as to be liable to cause harm to the public."
The Merchandise Marks Acts make the misdescription of goods an offence, and the proposed Bill for consumer protection would strengthen those Acts very considerably.
But neither the Merchandise Marks Act nor that Bill would have prevented the company which manufactured or distributed goods or which offered services to the public from using a name which conveyed a false and misleading

441
impression of the nature of the goods or services in which the company dealt; and, as I have said, it would not be possible in many cases for the Board of Trade to know, at the time of the application for that name, whether or not the name would become misleading as time went on. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood gave two examples. I think she intends to give more. But the sort of examples I have in mind particularly are those companies whose names indicate that they are manufacturing goods or that they are wholesaling goods whereas, in fact, they exist purely to sell goods to the retailer. This makes it easy for them to pretend that they are getting goods direct from their own factories, at factory prices, when they have no factories. This is the kind of case in which one would expect the Board of Trade to intervene if this particular clause were adopted. I think I have said enough to make clear the purpose of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. As he said, we discussed this matter in the Committee stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that he thought it could be dealt with in another Bill. I think he was referring to the proposed Bill for the protection of consumers; but we do not yet know when it is likely to be here. I think it would be much better if we could insert in this Bill, which is here, which is being discussed to-day and which is going to another place, some protection on the lines we have already discussed. We do not want the public to be misled; we do not want them to be taken in. We read distressing accounts in the newspapers of companies which are dishonest or "phoney"—whichever word one wants to use. The Amendment which has been moved and which I am supporting would give the public the protection to which they have a right.
In the Committee stage I mentioned the names of companies which are known to the Consumer Council to be operating unfairly and dishonestly in regard to the general public. There are others which have come to our knowledge since then; for this is something which is happening continuously. There was one company
442
called The Consumers' Information Council. It was registered under that title and people thought the title represented what it did, but in fact it was doing nothing of the kind. Then it had to change its name and chose something different. None of these names bore any relation to what the company was doing. In our last discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said that the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee, which we were supporting, were out of date because they were made in 1962. I can only tell the House that these matters connected with false names and wrong descriptions arise every day, and the situation is urgent. I would strongly urge the Government to accept this Amendment and thereby do something immediately to protect the consumers, the users of goods and services of all kinds, against fraudulent exploitation. It is not something which can be put off. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as has been said, on the Committee stage there were competing Amendments dealing with this point and submitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, by my noble friend Lord Peddie, and also by the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Erroll of Hale. I promised the noble Baroness that the Government would look at this question again. The Government have done so, but I regret that they feel unable to accept Amendments which are outside the scope of the Bill. The scope of the Bill is, as we know, disclosure and such matters as provisions with regard to insurance companies, in which field recent events have shown a particularly urgent need that the law should be amended at once. That being so, I do not propose to say a great deal about this matter. I have already explained the Government position, as I thought it right to do, rather fully on the Committee stage; and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, then said that I had read the Committee a lecture. I do not want to give him grounds for saying the same thing again.
Your Lordships know the history of this Bill and know why (in view of the position with regard to legislative time in another place during the months which remain in this Session) the Government

443
feel they are unable to extend the scope of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said yesterday, in relation to shares of no par value, that it was always possible for the Government to say: "So far; no further"; and that if they did not go further at least they should have the provisions regarding shares of no par value. If I might respectfully make two comments on that, I would say, first, that the Opposition having got their shares of no par value and having carried their Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, does not get up and say: "In view of that we shall not now press this Amendment". They are still asking for a whole range of things, nothing to do with non-disclosure, frauds, and so on. Secondly, to say that the Government can say: "So far, no further", is wholly to misunderstand the position which is going to arise.
In the other place there are, for example, the trade unions who are anxious to obtain Amendments to give further protection to employees on the liquidation of companies. This, of course, is Company Law. Undoubtedly, it is within the Title of the Bill, but, having regard to the Parliamentary timetable, the Government will be bound to say: "We are sorry, but we cannot accept this Amendment because it is outside the scope of the Bill. It will be very proper for the second Bill; but it is outside the scope of this one". But how can they possibly say that if they have allowed the Opposition in this House to introduce a series of new sections on shares of no par value involving alterations in income tax, surtax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, stamp duty and estate duty? How can the Government then seriously say to Amendments moved from their side of the House that they cannot go outside the field of disclosure?
The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said, quite rightly, that I had had no experience of the fourth year of the Cabinet and that it was therefore all very well to express an intention to introduce some further Bill at some later date. That is quite true. I can well understand that some Governments might be afraid to do something in the fourth year which might make them unpopular. I hope I am not biased in thinking that this Government have never shown any sign at all of being afraid to do anything that would make
444
them unpopular; but, even if that were so, I can hardly envisage a situation in which somebody says: "I would have voted Labour if they had not introduced that second Bill to reform Company Law". If I may say so, that seems rather an exaggerated idea. I know what was said in the Cabinet among my colleagues about the second Bill before this Bill was introduced. First, as I,understand it, no Government would ever give an unqualified undertaking as to the introduction of legislation in future Sessions; and, secondly, and in any case, obviously I cannot say what was said. All I can say is that I am confident that we shall have a second Companies Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament.
Most of the remaining recommendations of the Jenkins Committee clearly ought to be enacted. Moreover, it may be that we ought to think rather more of what the point of view of Socialists should be about the attributes of a modern company in a modern economic State. Many, of course, think that it should be the same as is taking place in some other Western democracies; that the people who really make a success of a company are not only those who provide its capital, but those who work for it, and that therefore, those who work for it ought always to be represented on the board more than is the case to-day. But these things we can consider when we come to the second Bill. I am not a betting man, but I would bet my boots, or shoes as they are (though not these, because they are very old; I have a pair of new shoes that I would bet) that we shall see a second Companies Bill in the lifetime of this Parliament.
My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot say more. We on this side of the House or where, but for Henry VIII's Statute I should be, that is, on that side of the House, are just as anxious as anybody to see Company Law fully reformed and made up-to-date. We are determined that that shall happen in the lifetime of this Parliament. But for the reasons that I have given before, I am afraid that from the Government's point of view this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill and I hope that, having heard what I have said, the noble Lord may think fit to withdraw the Amendment.
3.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I say how very much I regret that the

445
noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has not given any views on the merits of this Amendment? The position as I see it is that the Government made, and deliberately made, the decision—I think a wise and good decision—to introduce the Bill into this House; whereupon Members in every section of the House thought it their task to try to make it a better Bill according to their lights. I cannot see that there is anything wrong about that and the matter that I find most questionable in what was said by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack (and indeed by the Minister speaking for the Board of Trade yesterday) is the confidence with which they make assertions about the attitude of another place.
My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and unlike the representative of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, I had the honour of serving for twenty years in another place. I can only say that I differ entirely from the view that they take about another place. First of all, I do not think the other place very much likes confident statements being made about what their attitude will be before they have themselves had an opportunity of considering it. I think that is a regrettable thing. But so far as time is concerned, does anybody seriously believe that the time that will be taken over this Bill in another place is going to be affected in the least by whether the clause we are now discussing is in the Bill or is not in the Bill? It will not make an atom of difference to the time that will be taken in another place.
My Lords, I was sorry that the noble and learned Lord also made a statement about the Amendments that we passed yesterday dealing with shares of no par value, and I think unwittingly said something which was not accurate. He said that our Amendments necessitated some changes in the Income Tax Acts, and so forth. My Lords, they did not. They altered the Companies Act by inserting in the Act certain provisions which will
446
come into operation only when the Government make an Order bringing them into operation. It is perfectly true that the Amendments lay a foundation for a reform that can be completed only by changes which will have to be accomplished in a Finance Bill; but that can be done whenever the Government and another place think fit to do it. There is nothing about the Amendments that we passed on no par value shares that of themselves necessitate any further change in the law, in the Finance Bill, or otherwise.
My Lords, I felt it was worth making that statement because I want to say that one, I hope reasonably independent, Member of this House has tried to concentrate on improving a Bill which was deliberately introduced into this House. I believe that similar attempts have been made by noble Lords in all quarters of the House, and I cannot accept that there is any reason why the Government should not give their opinion on a short Amendment, like the one before them, and on the merits of that Amendment. I am very sorry indeed that that was not done.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I can quite understand the concern shown by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack about the possibility of extending the scope of this Bill. Obviously, it would be possible so to widen the scope of the Bill as to make it unnecessary to have a second Bill. I am sure that the House has no intention of doing that, but in view of the fact that my noble friend stated that the main purpose of the Bill was that of disclosure, I should like to ask whether it could not be considered that the Amendment before the House at this stage is concerned with the question of disclosure and, therefore, that its acceptance would not offend the justifiable principle which my noble friend has laid down, that it would be unwise to widen the scope of the Bill? It is my humble opinion that this would not widen the scope of the Bill because it comes within the compass of the definition which my noble friend has given.

MALTA: RUN-DOWN OF BRITISH FORCES
3.58 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement on Malta made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. He said:
"I wish to make a Statement on my recent visit to Malta in connection with the proposed reductions of our forces there.
"It was stated in last year's Defence White Paper (Command 2901) that we proposed to enter into consultations with the Government of Malta, in accordance with Article 6 of the Defence Agreement, for a reduction of British forces there in the next few years. My noble friend Lord Beswick inititiated these consultations in Malta last August when he put forward proposals for reducing our forces to Defence Review levels by the end of 1968. In the light of the strong reactions of the Malta Government and of subsequent representations made in London by the Maltese Prime Minister, Her Majesty's Government concluded that the proposals should be modified in order to reduce their impact on the Maltese economy, principally by deferring the withdrawal of British Army units for two years until 1970.
"The revised proposals envisage the withdrawal of Her Majesty's ships based on Malta and the disbandment of a second R.A.F. Squadron during the current year, the ending of British responsibility for the Royal Malta Artillery during 1968, and the withdrawal of both British infantry battalions in 1970. At the end of the run-down one R.A.F. Squadron would remain and a range of defence facilities would be retained. As a consequence of these reductions British defence expenditure in Malta would by 1970 fall by about a half from its present level of £12½ million a year. The number of British servicemen would be reduced from the present level of about 4,300 by about two-thirds by the end of 1970.
"I visited Malta from January 12 to 17 to continue our consultations and to present these revised proposals to the Malta Government. I had a series
448
of meetings with the Prime Minister and his advisers and also had discussions with leaders and representatives of many sections of Maltese opinion. I explained that the reduction of our forces in Malta was part of a worldwide redeployment of our defence effort, the object of which was to secure the most efficient use of the resources available to us. It would make a significant contribution to the worldwide economies which we are determined to make, without in our view affecting our ability—or our determination—to fulfil our obligations under the Defence Agreement for the defence of Malta itself. We recognised that the run-down of our forces would create serious problems for Malta particularly during the early years. It was in order to lessen the impact on the Malta economy and in response to the representations made by the Malta Government that we were now proposing to phase the run-down over four years instead of two. These revisions meant, for example, that in 1969–70 the level of employment would be more than 2,000 higher and service expenditure in Malta more than £3 million higher than under our previous proposals. These changes, which were not justified on purely defence grounds, represented a considerable sacrifice of savings in defence expenditure which we could otherwise have achieved. I also referred to the exceptionally high level of aid, running at about £18 per head a year which, despite cuts elsewhere, we were continuing to provide for Malta. I offered our co-operation in measures to alleviate the consequences of our run-down.
"The Government of Malta stressed the serious economic difficulties and heavy unemployment which they contended even our revised proposals would cause for Malta, particularly during the first two years. They also maintained that with our revised force levels we should be unable to honour effectively our obligations to assist in the defence of Malta under the Defence Agreement. They claimed that we were in breach of the Agreement in failing to consult them properly on these matters in advance. Many other expressions of disquiet at the economic effects of the run-down were made to me.

449
"A summary of the views of each side is contained in the joint communiqué, copies of which I have placed in the Library. I undertook to report the reactions of the Malta Government to Her Majesty's Government but discouraged expectations of further changes in our proposals. After considering my report, Her Majesty's Government have confirmed, with regret, that they cannot offer any further changes in their proposals for the run-down and must now proceed to put these into effect. I have so informed Dr. Borg Olivier in a personal message.
"While Her Majesty's Government do not deny that even the revised proposals will cause difficulties for the Maltese economy, we believe that these will be only temporary. In the longer run, Malta's economic prospects are good; industry and tourism are expanding, and the dockyard is a valuable asset. I hope that our aid can help Malta to surmount these short-term problems and lay the foundations for future prosperity in the island.
"I cannot conclude this Statement without a warm personal tribute to the Maltese Prime Minister and his colleagues who received me with unfailing courtesy and consideration, despite the difficult mission we had come to perform. One cannot visit Malta without being conscious of the great good will which exists there for Britain, and I have every hope that this good will, which is born of over 150 years of close association, in peace and war, will survive our present difficulties."
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement made by the Commonwealth Secretary. I think he will realise that it is a very grave Statement. I rather doubt whether the tributes paid to the Prime Minister of Malta in the last paragraph will compensate for the very harsh terms that have been imposed on his Government by the British Government. I think that there will be a feeling that the Government's actions are perhaps against the spirit, if not against the letter, of our Defence Agreement with Malta; and we on this side would wish to be convinced that Her Majesty's Government can carry out the commitments
450
they have entered into for the defence of Malta.
As to the effects upon the Malta economy, I have heard it suggested (and I wonder whether the noble Lord could confirm this) that in two years' time the rate of unemployment in Malta may rise to a figure of 17 per cent. Is that so? If it is, I think we should have to conclude that Her Majesty's treatment of Malta was niggardly on this occasion and that such treatment would not be acceptable to the people of this country, in view of our 150 years of close association about which the Minister spoke. We shall, of course, have to study very carefully the joint communiqué, which I understand is being placed in the Library, and if our fears about these actions are confirmed, it may well be that we shall ask for a debate on this subject at an early date.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating this long Statement. We on these Benches are concerned about that part of the Statement which says that the Maltese Government are upset by reason of the fact that they claim that we are in breach of the Agreement in failing to consult them properly on these matters in advance. I think that the House would wish to know to what extent, if any, the British Government have failed to meet their obligations in this matter.
On the problems arising out of the Statement, I should like to ask a few questions. First, about the Royal Malta Artillery. Although it may be said that it is desirable to bring home some of our troops, why should it not be possible to continue our support to the Royal Malta Artillery, an old and honourable regiment for which we have been responsible for many years? Even in our present time of stringency, it seems to me that we could do something to keep on this old regiment, even if in a modified form. Surely that would be better than disbanding it altogether, as will happen.
I understand that the number of Servicemen in Malta will be reduced from 4,200 to 1,400, I should like to ask what will be the number of Service families who will be brought home, and where the Government are going to put them when they get them home.

451
Lastly, will the Government consult both B.E.A. and the charter air firms to try to provide much cheaper aircraft fares to Malta, because without far cheaper fares than obtain at present there cannot, in my view, be any great increase in the number of tourists to Malta. I do not accept the noble Lord's and the Minister's optimistic view of the long-term economic prospects of Malta. In view of the water shortage, apart from anything else, it has always been difficult to believe that there is likely to be any great economic advance, except possibly in tourism.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would elucidate one point. Is the saving mentioned by the Minister gross or net; that is to say, does the saving take into account the re-housing of families that will be brought home?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, answering the noble Lady's point first, the saving will be on our expenditure in Malta. There will be, of course, other expenditures in this country. It is difficult to say what the net figure will be, because the fact that a man is housed in this country means that certain expenditures are saved. But the crucial point here, so far as the balance of payments is concerned, is, I think, the saving of currency spent overseas. I hear the murmurs all over the House about this. I assure the noble Lady, and all those who have reminded me that Malta is in the sterling area, that I am well aware of this fact. But having argued this point for some weeks with the Treasury, I am bound to say that I am convinced that money spent within the sterling area still affects our balance-of-payments considerations.
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, I agree with him that this is a grave Statement, and if, after reading the details in the communiqué, he has further questions to ask, or if he wishes to raise the matter in any other way, we will endeavour to provide him with all the information for which he asks. So far as our obligation to consult is concerned, there is here a difference of opinion. All I can say is that Her Majesty's Government are convinced that they have honoured their obligation to consult with the Maltese Government before any reductions are made. It is the fact that,
452
since I first went there in August of last year, there have been continual discussions; indeed, these could, I should have thought, quite rightly be called consultations. As the result of those discussions, significant changes have been made in the proposed reductions.
So far as the Royal Malta Artillery are concerned, I fully understand the noble Lord's question. Everybody will wish to pay tribute, as he has done, to the service which they have rendered. But the fact remains that there is no continuing role for this regiment, so far as our defence requirements are concerned, and we have therefore reluctantly had to say that by 1968 we shall have to end our responsibility for the R.M.A. Whether it will be possible for the Malta Government to accept that responsibility is for them to decide.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked, also, about the possibility of reducing air fares to Malta in order to assist the Island's tourist industry. As it happens, I have had discussions with the B.E.A. on this point. It is true to say that the lowest fare charged for flights overseas from this country, is the fare from here to Malta. In fact, I may say that we are in breach (and there is nothing underhand about this) of our I.A.T.A. Agreement by continuing to charge, for another year at any rate, a very low air fare to Malta. But this has had the effect of helping the Malta tourist industry. The real difficulty, so far as tourists are concerned, is not air transport, but the hotel accommodation on the Island.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question about the level of unemployment which Her Majesty's Government think may obtain in Malta in, say, two years' time.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the short answer is that the 17 per cent. figure would not, I think, be an agreed one. But it is considerable and I should not wish to try to hide that fact. We hope, however, that as a result of the extension of the run-down period from two years to four years the original fears will be diminished, and it is hoped that in the extended time new jobs will be found by those displaced.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred in his Statement

453
to the phasing of the run-down of the Service personnel from two years to four years. Is it not a fact that, with regard to Maltese civilians, there will be 5,000 unemployed in two years (and this period has not been increased), and that in four years it will be 10,000? In fact, in the phasing there has been no change in the number of civilians who will be unemployed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the numbers affected are indeed considerable, but it is not true to say that as a result of these consultations no changes have been made. As a matter of fact, so far as locally engaged personnel are concerned, considerable easements have been made. The figures, as I understand them now, are as follows. The British Services at present employ about 2,500 locally enlisted Maltese servicemen, including the 400 with the Royal Malta Artillery, and about 7,800 civilians. By the end of 1970—that is, the end of the run-down period—these figures will be about 750 enlisted servicemen, and 3,000 civilians.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that, with the money we spend on the Island, Malta buys a vast amount of British goods which are sold to tourists from all over the world? From the point of view of overseas expenditure, I do not see that Malta is so different from, say, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Is the noble Lord aware, also, that in the last ten years we have spent an enormous amount of British money on the balance and the quarters of the Forces in Malta, all of which, presumably, will be thrown away? Lastly, is the noble Lord aware that when the Royal Malta Artillery was reduced on an earlier occasion there was an opportunity, at least for the officers who were on long-term engagements, to transfer to our own Royal Artillery, but that, in view of the fact that there are so many redundancies in our own Royal Artillery, such a career prospect now is highly unlikely?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, so far as the export element is concerned, it is true that a proportion of what we spend in Malta is used by the Maltese for buying goods from this country, and this must be taken into account when assessing the economic benefit to this country. It is not true to say that all we spend there is
454
used for buying British goods; but a proportion is. It is not 100 per cent.; nor indeed 50 per cent., but less. This aspect has, of course, been considered.
So far as accommodation is concerned, I recognise what has been said about this. It has been said by Members on this side of the house, too, from time to time, about other bases which Conservative Administrations have had to leave, that money has been spent on accommodation, which has then been vacated. I am afraid that if we are to make any reductions in our overseas defence commitments, this will happen. I only hope that better use will be made of the accommodation which we are vacating. I hope particularly, that, so far as the medical facilities are concerned, they will be of great value to the Maltese.
On the point with regard to the Royal Malta Artillery, again I have to accept what the noble Lord says: that the opportunities for enlistment in the British Services, particularly so far as the commissioned officers are concerned, are now much less than they were. So far as other ranks are concerned, I still hope that some will be able to find places within the British services.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will reply to one question which I asked but which he has not so far answered? That is, about the number of families affected.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did not answer that question because, quite frankly, I do not know the numbers of families involved. If it is possible to obtain the figures, I will let the noble Lord know. But, of course, the fact that we have extended the presence of the two battalions for a further two years means that this is not an immediate problem.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, while recognising the need to reduce military expenditure, whether Her Majesty's Government have given full consideration to the services which the people of Malta have rendered to this country; how for years it was the naval bastion of this country; how in the last war we gave the George Cross to the whole of the Maltese population; how General Eisenhower said that their resistance had meant that the war had been concluded three months earlier than otherwise would have been the case? In

455
view of these facts, will our Government give them the fullest possible economic aid, in order that the economy of Malta may be changed from a naval to an industrial basis? And will they ask America and the United Nations, who both benefited from Maltese resistance, to make some contribution to a fund for that purpose?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that we shall do all that is possible; that we are now doing a good deal, and that should not be overlooked. Eighteen pounds per head of the population of Malta is not an insignificant contribution. So far as the naval facilities there are concerned, as my noble friend probably knows, the majority of those facilities are already being used as a civilian dockyard; and I hope this dockyard will be expanded for the benefit of the Maltese economy.
So far as the general point which he makes is concerned, I would say this to him. I recognise—and it would be true to say none more—the contribution made by Malta during the time of the war. I have emphasised the point in many quarters. It is a fact. But it is also a fact that people cannot go round, as my noble friend has gone round, demanding economies in general, and resisting each in particular. If we are going to make economies in military expenditure, all theatres will be affected.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, recognised the importance of this matter and might well wish an opportunity for a debate, I wonder whether—as we have now been on the Statement for some 25 minutes—we should not now resume our consideration of the Companies Bill, on the understanding that if noble Lords wish to raise this matter we will see what can be done, through the usual channels, to provide the necessary time.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
4.22 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as we are back on the Companies Bill I should like to follow up something said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and also by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford; that is to say, to what extent we as a House should deal with a matter of this kind which was not in the original Bill. As I understand it, in the past in this House, if a matter was within the Title of a Bill any noble Lord was quite entitled to put down an Amendment or a new clause, if he thought fit, for it to be discussed. This is particularly the case when it is a House of Lords Bill. The only time in my recollection when I have heard the kind of argument we have heard adduced to-day from the Woolsack, and also adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, yesterday, has been at the end of a Session, when the Government, Labour or Conservative, would in case of need come forward and more or less put a pistol to the head of the House and say, "Look, we think this is an admirable thing, but if you press it we shall not get the Bill at all". We have always grumbled even then; I have grumbled many times myself and talked about pistols and blackmail, but it has not made any difference at all. One had to give way because the Government turned round and said, "Either/or—either you let this go through as it is, or you do not get the Bill".
There is no question of that position arising on this Bill. This is a House of Lords Bill. I assume that the Lord Chancellor was talking about a fourth year for the Government; he does not think they are going to collapse very quickly. Therefore, according to the Government's view, there is no need to think that they are going to the country in any short space of time and that therefore the Bill will not be taken through the House of Commons. So I, for my part, cannot see why we should not deal with this new clause on its merits, irrespective of what administrative difficulty it may cause the Government. That is one of the purposes we are here for: to cause administrative difficulty to the Government. That is their look-out, not ours.

457
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that they had to consult a lot of Departments and some of the Departments would not like it if the Amendment went in. What has that to do with us? We do not care whether they like it or not. We put in Bills what we think should be in them, and if some backroom boy in the Treasury or the Board of Trade does not like it, it is just too bad. If we had taken a firmer line, even at the end of a Session, it would have been better, because in my experience a number of Bills have gone through this House which could have been much improved by our taking a firm line with the Government.
To-day I would suggest to your Lordships that we stand on our rights, and if we think that this is the sort of new clause that ought to be in the Bill, then let us put it in the Bill; and if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, decides to divide on it we must exercise our individual judgment on whether we like the clause or whether we do not.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I have not been in this House a great length of time, nor have I a great deal of experience of this House, but I am a little shocked to hear that it is the duty or right of noble Lords here to put in the Bill whatever they like without regard to the circumstances. The Labour Governments of this country since the war have been the only Governments which have introduced Companies Bills. This is not a political debate, but in view of what has been said I am going to say that in their thirteen years in office the Opposition Party never introduced a Companies Bill.
This Government see the urgent necessity of amending the Companies Act. It is urgent. We have a crowded timetable of legislation, but the Government have proceeded on to the Companies Act and have taken the Jenkins Report as a basis. There is not in this Bill a third of the recommendations which appear in the Jenkins Report; there are twice as many recommendations, most of which seem very sound, in the Jenkins Report as we have in this Bill. It is open to anybody in respect of a vast mass of potential Amendment to advance precisely the same arguments which the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches has just put. If anyone in the House took up this irresponsible
458
attitude we should send out a Bill two or three times as long as the one we have here.
It is not wrong or stupid, but wise, to point out from the Government Benches that there is a limit to the length of the Bill. We have started dealing with the matter, and I feel a little cross when noble Lords say what has been said. It is as though a committee were trying to run a sports meeting and had decided that in order to attract the public it would be necessary to limit it from 2 to 5 o'clock, and then people came along and said, "Surely we can have a hop, skip and jump. It will only take five minutes." The reply is, "We are trying to limit it from 2 till 5 o'clock, and if we put that in we shall have to put other things in as well." But they keep saying, "It will only be an additional five minutes." We get this argument every time, without reference to the real argument which this side of the House is making. Noble Lords are entitled to ignore the main argument I have made and which others have made as well, but we shall not respect Members from the other side for completely ignoring our argument, which is a cogent argument.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord ignores my argument. If you want to limit the scope of the Bill it is done by the Title. If something is within the Title we can move an Amendment upon it. The noble Lord is trying to introduce a completely new procedure in Parliament.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, so long as the procedure results in the Government spokesman standing up and being entirely objective about the situation, I see nothing wrong with such a new procedure and perhaps it would be a good idea if this House became a little more objective and faced the issue of Parliamentary time. There is not untold time in which to get these Motions through. If you want to move an Amendment on this matter you are entitled to do so. The content of this Amendment is perfectly sound; there is no mistake about that. But if we go on amending the Bill and extending it, the same thing will happen in another place and a great deal of time will be wasted.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I must say a word because I was responsible for

459
the no-par-value shares Amendment. It seems to me that the Government are saying that the scope of every Bill shall remain what it was when they introduced it. I must draw on my experience in another place. Take the Finance Bill. Year after year honourable Members in another place try to get into the Finance Bill, to effect some relief or other in taxation, new clauses for which they think there is a good case, and from time to time they get them in. It has never been assumed in another place that the scope of the Bill was absolutely fixed when the Bill arrived. It was always considered the right of an honourable Member to try to make the legislation better.
If we put in good Amendments—and I hope any Amendments on which we chose to divide the House would be good Amendments—and if they are sound, the Members in another place will not waste any time on those Amendments, especially if the Government admit them in principle. What the Government are saying to us is, "We are afraid, even with our majority of one hundred in another place, that if you here set an example of putting something good into the Bill, the Members there will follow it and we shall not be able to keep our people in order".
This is a rather difficult doctrine to swallow, because a man is elected a Member of another place to do what he thinks right. If a majority of another place wants to put in Amendments and they win the Division, that is the way our country is governed. To start now and say we must take every precaution that there are no majority votes in another place for Amendments which will enlarge the scope of the Bill is, I think, constitutionally very dangerous. I am sorry we have to say this. I have always thought the Executive was getting more and more powerful all the time, and I think I see certain reasons why that is so, but I did suppose that Members of Parliament on the Back Benches would always have the right to try to make legislation better. If that is taken away from them it is not very clear what we come here for.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may follow up some of the remarks that have been made on
460
the attitude of the Government. May I put this to the noble Lord opposite and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack: that they are saying to us that if we in this House put Amendments into the Bill then another place is likely to bring in a great many other Amendments which will take a great deal of time, Amendments which it will be difficult to resist. I wonder whether they would look at it from the other point of view? If they are suggesting to us that it is provocative to put Amendments in, what do they think it is to say, "You must not put Amendments in"? This Bill will go to another place, a Bill on which the Government have said, "On no account will we accept any Amendments in here". What is another place going to think of that? What would your reactions be, my Lords? What would be the attitude of noble Lords opposite in similar circumstances, if they were in Opposition? They would find out every single Amendment they could get and the Bill would go on and on in Committee. Surely that is human nature, and it cannot be described as irresponsible. Because what we are here to do is to discuss Acts of Parliament and to legislate and to move into those Acts of Parliament those things which we think will be of benefit to the public.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I know the noble Lord does not intend to be unfair, but I think he is very unfair when he uses words to suggest that our attitude has been that no Amendments to the Bill are to be allowed, particularly as a large number of Amendments have been accepted. It is ungenerous to say that. We have leant over backwards to try to take note of the very wide counsel from the Opposition Benches. But we do not want to extend this Bill outside certain limits.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I accept that, and we are grateful to the noble Lord for making improvements to the Bill. None of these improvements have involved new clauses. The Amendments I was talking about were new clauses. This is what is at issue. We pride ourselves on being a democratic community, and one would imagine that the Government would be prepared to accept advice on improvements that they themselves admit are improvements being

461
added to the Bill. This is partly what we are here for. But, instead of that, we are accused of an irresponsible attitude for wanting to improve the Bill. This is just the pure fact of the matter. This is what the noble Lord said: "If you try to improve the Bill by extending it to cover things which the Government themselves admit will be to the benefit of the public, you are irresponsible". That is what the noble Lord said, in terms, on this particular Amendment. All we have had from him is that this Amendment is sound. My Lords, what on earth are we expected to do in those circumstances?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Carry it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It seems incredible that noble Lords should get up from the other side and say that the Amendment is sound and then say, "But we must not have it in the Bill". It has been in the Jenkins Report. It is within the scope of the Bill. What does he expect us to do? I think he has put us in a terribly difficult position. In a way I was almost hoping he would not say anything at all, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did, about the content, although I must say it is very odd we should be moving an Amendment here. I have nearly passed my majority of twenty-one years in Parliament, but I have never on any occasion, so far as I can remember, known an Amendment to be moved but the substance of it not discussed at all by the Government. All the noble Lord can say to us is, "The Amendment is sound, but we reject it". My Lords, he is really being extraordinarily provocative to the point of irresponsibility himself. I must invite noble Lords to take what action they think on this matter, because it is only right that there should be a protest against the treatment that Parliament is receiving.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I beg permission of the House to speak twice on this Amendment, although precedent will indicate that such begging of leave is not necessary. I think we are getting a long way wide of the mark in this debate. I appreciate the attitude of the Government in seeking to restrict the scope of the Bill. That I think is completely justified—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, who has the great respect of this House and who is very popular on all sides, but I think it is an abuse of the procedure of this House to get up and say, "May I have the leave of the House?" and then to speak a second time. I think it is just permissible, as we said earlier to-day, to intervene to ask a question, but to make a speech I think is out of order.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I was proceeding, possibly in too long-winded a way, to ask for an answer to a question which I put to my noble friend and which apparently has been lost in the welter of discussion on matters which had no strict relevance to this particular Amendment. I would request my noble friend to give an answer to the question I put as to whether or not this particular Amendment came within the scope of the Bill.
LORD BROWN: I think the answer is, No. It is difficult to draw hard and fast lines. I am not going to pretend that it is easy to draw a line on one side of which fall all matters which should be included in the Bill and on the other all matters which should not be included. It is a question of judgment in trying to get a reasonable limitation. I think this falls on the wrong side of the line.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I do not believe the noble Lord the Minister who has just replied has any sound grounds for saying that. I look at this particular matter as one of disclosure. You are asking a company to disclose its true business. Before it starts business it has to disclose it to the Board of Trade, and they have to agree what sort of name it will have. It must not be a deceptive name. After it has started to trade, for some reason or other it manages to work itself away into a position where its actual trade bears no relation to its title. Therefore, it is proposed to insert this clause, in order to cause the company to disclose what it should have disclosed at the beginning. Therefore, I submit that it is well within the spirit of this Bill. It is merely carrying the doctrine of disclosure a little further, and while I do not regard it as a terribly important Amendment, in view of the difficulties the noble Lord has been making about accepting it I think we should be quite justified in putting it into the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am astonished that the noble Lord should say that this Amendment is not within the scope of the Bill. I do not think he can possibly justify that observation. This Amendment seeks to amend a section of the principal Act. Furthermore, if the Amendment is made it will not involve any alteration to the Title of the Bill. If it were not within the scope of the Bill, then to make the Bill right the Long Title would have to be amended; but no such Amendment is required. No doubt it was convenient
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, after Clause 37, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 188 of principal Act
". Section 188(1) of the principal Act (which provides for the restraint of fraudulent
to the noble Lord to say, in answer to his noble friend, that in his opinion the Amendment was not within the scope of the Bill. But if he consulted anyone with any experience of these matters they would be bound to say that, whether or not the Amendment is desirable, clearly it is within the scope of the Bill.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Ailwyn. L.

Ebbisham, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Albemarle, E.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Amulree, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Merthyr, L.

Atholl, D.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Morrison, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray & Stourton, L.

Blackford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moynihan, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Brentford, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ogmore, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Buckton, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Helens, L.

Caccia, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Salter, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hereford, V.

Sandys, L.

Cohen, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Shannon, E.

Conesford, L.

Howard of Glossop. t

Slim, V.

Crathorne, L.

Howe, E.

Somers, L.

Daventry, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ilford, L.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

Inchyra, L.

Thurlow, L.

Devonshire, D.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Jessel, L.

Wade, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Willingdon, M.

Dudley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Wolverton, L.

Limerick, E.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Davids. V.

Archibald, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bowles, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Lindgren, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Sorensen. L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Pargiter, L.

Taylor, L.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Piercy, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hall. V.

Rhodes, L.

Williamson, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

persons from managing companies) shall be amended by the insertion, after sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b), of the following subparagraphs:—

'(iii) has been convicted on indictment of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty whether in connection with a company or not;

(iv) has been persistently in default in complying with the provisions of the Companies Acts 1948 to 1966;

465

(v) has shown himself, when acting as a director of any company or when otherwise concerned in their management, to have acted in an improper, reckless or incompetent manner in relation to the company's affairs.'"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 56 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. This refers again to something in the Jenkins Report, which we have been discussing at some length to-day, but it also refers to the discussion we had in Committee when my noble friend Lord Peddie moved a somewhat similar Amendment, and also the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. All these Amendments have been put together in one Amendment. It is a composite Amendment and it covers recommendations contained in paragraph 85(b) of the Jenkins Committee Report, page 29. We hope it will clear up some of the confusion to which the discussion on Committee stage led, since we had two Amendments down.
We are concerned with the list of individuals who involve themselves in short-term private companies and operate with financially fraudulent intentions. This list is maintained by the Consumer Council. There is no sign that such activities are decreasing. We have knowledge in the Council of pending liquidations long before they come about, but we have been unable to take steps to protect or warn the public.
During the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out that the objection to the Amendments was that any increase in the subject matter of the Bill might lead the Government to decide not to proceed with the Bill and therefore this would be detrimental. We discussed that matter at great length just now and I will not go over the ground again. But this particular Amendment is not one which is contentious. My noble friend and colleague on the Council, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is supporting it, and we do not approach this matter in any Party political spirit at all. We are simply concerned to try to improve the Bill in the interests of the people in whom we are particularly interested—that is, the general public and those who are taken in and suffer from the fraudulent activities of dishonest people.
I hope that in the course of the discussion I may get some encouragement
466
from the Government and some indication that they realise that this is a matter of great significance to the public, and some assurance that if they are not prepared to accept this Amendment to-day they could, without lengthening the Bill, without complicating things in another place as the noble and learned Lord has asked us not to do, add something which would deal with this very distressing fradulent behaviour which we all know goes on. Only recently the newspapers have been full of actions by directors which have led to great distress and unhappiness and cheating of the public, and this is what we all want to avoid. I know that members of the Government feel just as strongly as we on this side do. I hope the Government will see their way to incorporate this clause in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this Amendment. This again, of course, is a recommendation of Jenkins, as she has indicated. It provides that the court may disqualify a person from being a director, or being in any way concerned or taking part in the management of a company, for up to five years without the leave of the court if it finds in the course of winding up a company that he has been convicted. Noble Lords can see the three points mentioned here. This was a recommendation of the Jenkins Committee, in paragraph 85(b), that the powers of the court to disqualify should be extended to cover such persons.
I am not certain that this clause goes quite so far as it might, but at any rate it is a step in the right direction. If the noble Lord felt it would be better to alter the new clause slightly in order to provide that the two points mentioned here—that is, conviction on indictment of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty and the following case—should be coupled for the disqualification, quite apart from winding-up proceedings, I think we would assent to that; and we would further assent to an extension of the disqualification up to a period of five years, to run from the termination of the sentence of imprisonment, if such were imposed.

467
The point of this Amendment is that it brings this part of the legislation into line with what is being done in Part II to a large extent, where in Clause 48 the Board of Trade are given powers to disqualify from taking part in the conduct of a business someone who is not a fit and proper person in the sphere of insurance. It seems to me it is difficult for the Government to resist doing the same in the wider sphere, and if they can see their way to do this it plainly is advisable to take this step at this time, because by so doing they will be preventing a good deal of fraud and dishonesty, and preventing a good many people from being defrauded in the course of the next two or three years before the next Companies Bill comes along. In my view, there is an irresistible case for doing something here, and I hope the noble Lord will agree. I think it would be wise to move one or two new clauses into the Bill; simply because it would avoid that kind of complication to which I referred on the last Amendment. If it were plain that the Lords had not been debarred from moving new clauses into the Bill, I think that the passage of the Bill in another place would be much quicker than it would otherwise be.
LORD PEDDIE: I rise to support the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite in this Amendment. The Amendment itself is the sum of the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I put forward on the Committee stage and is, I think, something of an improvement. I need not repeat the arguments that I used on a previous occasion. To some extent, they have already been repeated by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite. But I certainly hope that the Government will receive this Amendment sympathetically. I was able on the last occasion to give some indication of the experience of the Consumer Council who had evidence of a long procession of exceedingly doubtful characters, clearly operating with short-term companies, to the detriment of the general public, though it appeared that little could be done about it. To my mind at least, this Amendment does not go outside the scope of the Bill. I appreciate the Government's difficulties in this regard, but this Amendment gives adequate protection to the consumer. In
468
the light of the arguments put forward, supported by considerable experience, particularly by the Consumer Council, I sincerely hope that the Front Bench will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
LORD COHEN: My Lords, I want to say only one thing. I am in favour of the principle of the Amendment, but I should be interested to hear a word from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on paragraph (b), which refers to a man who
"has shown himself, when acting as a director of any company or when otherwise concerned in their management, to have acted in an improper, reckless or incompetent manner …"
It seems to me that that may be a difficult thing for the court to decide. However, no doubt the wording can be improved upon. But I am a little worried as to the generality of those words.
5.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, as to the width of the clause. But the Government's objection is really one of principle, which I can deal with very shortly; namely, that this matter is outside the scope of the Bill. In view of one or two things which were recently said by Members of your Lordships' House, may I make it quite clear that there is no constitutional question here? There is, of course, no question that your Lordships' House have an absolute right to make any Amendment to any Bill, as your Lordships like. In another place, Members are at least limited to the Title to the Bill; but in your Lordships' House the Title can always be altered, and there is almost no Amendment which this House is not entitled to make in a Bill, if it wishes to do so. References to the scope of the Bill are simply references to a decision by the Government to have a limited Bill, rather than an unlimited one.
This is the first year of the life of this Government. So far, only about nine months have gone by. Considering the size of the promises in their Election Manifesto, they could hardly have been blamed if they had said, "We have said that we are in favour of law reform. In various respects, we are going to carry out law reform, in this, our first year, in

469
small Bills. But in respect of Company Law reform, which Conservative Governments did not touch for 13 years, we really cannot do that in the first year. "The Government decided to introduce a Bill for the reform of Company Law, but have explained from the start that legislative time does not allow for a full Bill.
In the Jenkins Committee Report there are something like 325 separate recommendations. One section—and in the Government's view much the most important—comprises all those recommendations which relate to disclosure. Accordingly, it was to that section, plus another forty clauses dealing with insurance companies (for reasons with which your Lordships are all familiar), that the Government felt bound to limit the Bill. Of course there are separate Parts of the Bill. The Jenkins Report contains a separate chapter dealing with business and company names—business names, company names, change of company's name, disclosure of names of company directors; and there are 16 different recommendations. The Amendment which your Lordships have already made as to names is one out of the large number to which the Government had no real objection, except that it was outside what I have defined as the scope of the Bill.
Here also the Jenkins Committee have made a number of recommendations, dealing with fraud and incompetence on the part of directors. This is just one of them. There is also a recommendation, in paragraph 503(a), that the power of the court under Section 270 to order the public examination of the directors of insolvent companies should be extended. It may well be that this is a good proposal. There is a recommendation, in paragraph 503(b), that directors be made responsible for the debts of a company which has carried on business recklessly. That also may be an admirable recommendation. There is a recommendation, in paragraph 503(c), that penalties for fraudulent trading provided by Section 322 can be applied whether the facts are discovered in a winding-up or not. There is also a recommendation, in paragraph 503(d), that Section 333 should provide a summary procedure to deal with actionable negligence by directors. All these recommendations in relation to directors may be admirable recom
470
mendations, but they are outside the scope of the Bill. It is for that reason that, regretfully, the Government are unable to accept this Amendment, even if it were not in its terms too wide.
If I may go on to express my own personal and additional regret, as your Lordships know I am particularly interested in law reform, and interested, as I believe many Members of your Lordship's House are, in getting more Bills started in your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is about the only Minister so far who has felt prepared to trust his Bill to your Lordships' House in the first place. I suppose it is not unnatural that Ministers should want to introduce their own Bills before their own colleagues in their own House, where they have a majority; and I should greatly regret it if your Lordships, as you appear to be going to do, were to treat this Bill in a way which will make it much less likely that any of my colleagues will wish to start their Bills in your Lordships' House. In view of all those considerations I hope that the noble Baroness will think it right to withdraw this Amendment.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made it quite clear what he meant by the use of the expression" scope of the Bill". In another place that has a certain technical connotation, and when Is poke about the last Amendment not being outside the scope of the Bill I was dealing with it from that point of view. I think it is also true to say that this particular Amendment is not in any technical sense outside the scope of the Bill. It would not require any amendment of the Long Title. Of course, in another place, as indeed in this House, the Long Title can, if need be, be amended.
The Lord Chancellor has made a powerful plea that we should not add greatly to the content of the Bill. The Government wished to introduce a limited Bill, and anything that is not within the limits which the Government thought fit to prescribe is, in that sense, as the noble and learned Lord has made quite clear, outside the scope of the Bill in the sense in which he has used the

471
term. The reason which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has advanced is that of pressure on Parliamentary time. On a Bill of this kind, I fully realise, and indeed sympathise with, the desire of a Government that it should not become too controversial and so have its passage delayed. But I should have thought it was only if highly controversial Amendments were introduced into the Bill that there was any real risk of more legislative time being consumed in getting it through another place.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has pointed out that some of the Amendments pick up only particular recommendations of the Jenkins Committee Report. So be it: but if those recommendations are recommendations which meet with approval from both sides of this House, then is there really much objection to their inclusion in the Bill? If after careful consideration the Amendments meet with approval from both sides of this House, I should have thought that it would be extremely unlikely—of course anything may happen, as one knows, in another place—that they would be the subject of acute controversy in another place and would delay the passage of the Bill for one moment. They would possibly pass without any discussion at all. Therefore, while I sympathise with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said as indicating the view of the Government on this matter, I hope that neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who has fought so valiantly to maintain the Bill in its present form, will resist too strenuously Amendments which are not likely to be controversial in another place, and so not likely to lead to the consumption of more time in the passage of the Bill.
Having said that, I hope that my noble friend who moved the Amendment, and the noble Lord opposite who supported her, will not press it, because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Cohen has said, I think the wording of subsection (5) is so wide as to be almost ineffective and needs a good deal of reconsideration. With those words in that Amendment, even if it were not for what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, I myself would not find it possible to vote for it.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I rise only for two purposes. The first is to correct with very great respect the recollection of my noble and learned friend, in that a Bill for the preservation of commons was introduced in this place by another Minister. The second purpose is to say a word or two, I hope in a completely non-contentious spirit this time, about what seems to me to be a rather interesting and, I think, constitutional question, the scope of legislation.
On the technical point, I have always understood, when considering this in another place, that there were two separate matters. One was what could be comprehended within the words of the Long Title; and the second was the scope of the Bill which was occasionally, though not often in the nature of the case, applied to ruled-out Amendments which were within the actual wording. The actual wording in this Long Title happens to be very wide. When one comes to the scope of a Bill the question is: whose business is it to decide how much of the cherry is to be bitten off, or, if you like, in how many bites the cherry is to be taken?
I think it is fair to say that when the Jenkins Report appeared, and for some time afterwards, there was a good deal of criticism of it on the lines that it did not go quite far enough. I do not want to embark upon that question now, but I noticed that criticism in the Press at the time, as did other people. There was some pressure on the Government of the day to carry out the Jenkins Report. I charge my memory, but I think that it has been said that they did not accept it as by any means the last word, and that they wanted to see whether it needed supplementing at any point. It is true that the Jenkins Committee made a very large number of recommendations, and I remember pressure being put on the Conservative Government of the day in connection with the Trustee Bill when it was in the other place. We tried to get them to carry out certain things on the lines of the Jenkins recommendations, and I think the answer we were given was that they were not quite acceptable as a whole. I always understood this to mean that, while in some respects they might think the Jenkins Report went too far, in other respects they thought it did not go far enough.

473
But can the matter really be stated like that? If one is presented with a Report on a complex matter such as this, a matter which is subject to a certain amount of reasoned criticism, is it not the responsibility of the Government of the day in promoting legislation to take it in stages, if it is necessary to do so, in order to get a proper revision of the subject as a whole? To take the Amendment which we are now considering, it may well be that it is acceptable to everybody, not necessarily in the present form, but in principle, or in some other form. That may be the case, but if these bits and pieces are to be accepted as we go through the Bill, each of them said to be comparatively minor, each said to carry general consent, are we not taking the risk thereby of making a mess of the task which will have to be faced ultimately? I refer to the task of revising Company Law as a whole, not only in the light of the Jenkins Report, but in the light of criticisms made of it and of developments which have occurred since it was passed.
My feeling about this is that it is a great pity to have to tailor the scope of what you are doing—the size of the job, the bite of the cherry, whatever you like to call it—by the political accident of what is or what is not sought to be put in during the course of proceedings here or, for that matter, in another place. I believe that the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Government of the day, whatever its colour, of deciding in what stages it takes a broad subject and, when it is dealing with a Bill directed to one aspect of it, whether it should or should not include incidental things even though they are by common consent. What I am really saying is that it is never sufficient that we should be broadly agreed on a piece of a Bill as it is. We must also be agreed on its taking its proper place in the framework of legislation such as we are bound to have when we are dealing with subjects in this modern, changing world.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amenment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Commencement of, and exercise of powers to make regulations under, certain provisions of Part 1]:
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, this Amendment lays on the Board of Trade the duty to appoint the day on which the system of no-par-value shares shall come into operation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, at end insert—
(" ( ) section (Shares of no par value) of this Act and Schedule (Amendments of the Companies Acts 1948 consequential on the introduction of Shares of No Par Value) thereto shall come into operation on such day as the Board of Trade may by order appoint.")—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Provisions for preventing unfit persons from being associated with insurance companies]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after "an incorporated company if", to insert "after due consideration". The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage we had considerable discussion, to which both sides of the House contributed, arising out of a feeling of disquiet that there was no kind of appeal for any persons whom the Board of Trade considered not to be fit and proper persons to conduct, or to be involved in, insurance. The purpose of this Amendment is to give a form of appeal to the Board of Trade itself. This, I think, implements to a large extent the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. If the noble Lord will look at what he said, he will see that he was advocating the same kind of appeal as applies in town and country planning and certain aspects of that sort.
What is proposed in my next Amendment, No. 59, is that the Board of Trade should afford
"the officer or other person in question an opportunity of making representations to them, either in person or in writing, as he may elect."
The other point—and this was not raised in the Committee Stage—is that when the Board of Trade refuses an authorisation to a company to carry on some form of insurance business, the company will not know why that refusal has been made unless the Board of Trade tells them.
Two points seem to arise here. In the normal way, one would expect the Board of Trade to give a reason for not giving an authorisation, especially if it was related to some shortcoming that is I laid down, as to capital and so forth.

475
So at the end of the day the company would be almost certain to know by a process of deduction that, if they were not told the reason, it was because somebody in their ranks was not a fit and proper person. The company will want to get its authorisation and, therefore, it seems to follow that it should be told how it can put its house in order, and of whom it must get rid if it is to get its authorisation. I find it difficult to see how this can be avoided.
The other matter to which I should just like to draw attention is this. The point of the first, and paving, Amendment is to give an appeal able cause of action, if the Board of Trade does not give "due consideration". In other words, the only circumstances in which an appeal will lie to a court is when somebody is told that he is not a fit and proper person, and is not given an opportunity of making representations. Therefore, this Amendment is purely to ensure that the Board of Trade does give an opportunity of making representations. In that way, it will be entirely in the hands of the person who is said to be not a fit and proper person, as to whether he avails himself of the opportunity for an appeal on the ground that he has not been given a hearing.
If the person is not given a hearing, he may prefer to "lump" it, and not to raise the matter publicly, but it seems inconceivable that the Board of Trade would not give the person in question an opportunity of making representations, and I think I am right in saying that this is commonly done. But I think that it is very hard on a company, if it is refused an authorisation on the ground that it has within its ranks an officer or a director who is not a fit and proper person, and when it complies in every other respect and does not even know that it has such a person within its ranks, that it should not be told how to put its house in order. I recognise the difficulties here, but this is a matter which plainly exercised the House at an earlier stage, and the reason why I have put down this Amendment is to allow it to be explored further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 34, after ("if") insert ("after due consideration").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am not going to make a speech. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should like the noble Lord to confirm, if he will, that my suggestion about people being heard was not in connection with this matter at all, but arose on an Amendment from the Opposition to provide for an appeal to the court in a case where I thought that an appeal was inappropriate. That is right is it not?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree. But I understood that in the course of his observations the noble Lord laid stress on the need for a person to be heard in a case of this kind.
LORD MITCHISON: In the case to which I was referring.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an Amendment that is within the scope of the Bill: it is very much a matter of opinion, and certainly not unimportant. We shall all agree, I think—certainly, all lawyers will agree—that if a man is to be penalised in some way or other he ought to be told what is alleged against him, and he ought to be given an opportunity of answering it. The Bill as drafted does not do this. The effect of the Bill is that a man can be refused a licence to start a new insurance business without being given any reason, and without having a legal right to make representations. It is one of those difficult cases where we have to balance the interests of the individual and the interests of the community.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the Amendments require the Board to identify the person considered unfit and to state their reasons for refusing the authorisation. Obviously, this would mean that the Board could not act on confidential information, since they could not disclose it in stating their reasons to the applicant. The Board might thus be obliged to authorise companies to undertake insurance business, even though they suspected that the business would be conducted dishonestly or recklessly. To reveal to the person considered unfit the confidential information on which the decision was based—quite apart from being a breach of confidence—could rarely be done without risking charges of defamation, either against the Board or against the source of the information, and would obviously prejudice the future supply of confidential information.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? He has pointed to a possible weakness in my Amendment arising out of one possible way of interpreting the words "the reason for their refusal". But what I meant by these words, "the reason for their refusal" was simply that the Board might take the view that a company had an unfit and "improper" person, if I may put it in that way, in their ranks, as opposed to the reason that the capital was insufficient, or whatever the reason for the refusal was. I did not say, and I did not intend to imply, that the Board should have to give a reason why they thought that a man was an "improper" person. That is a different matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with great respect, I thought that the individual was much more important than the company. I do not know whether the Amendment was intended to provide that the Board of Trade should go to the company and, behind the person's back, tell the company, "This is your employee whom we have got something against", without the individual's ever knowing it. I see that the noble Lord agrees that of course the individual has to know. That being so, surely the individual ought to be told, if he is to make representations, what it is that the Board of Trade have against him.
The difficulty, of course, is that, where the Board's information is confidential information received from the City, if they have to do this they will never again get any confidential information from the City. One has to weigh up the importance of the two things: refusing to authorise insurance business where it would not be advisable to do so, and the protection of the insuring public.
It is not only the insured public. After all, in one recent case there were, I think, 240,000 policy holders, and this may mean people losing their homes. But in the case of those who are insured in respect of third party risks, there are also the third parties to be considered. We all know of cases in the courts involving terrible injuries which may take two or three years to come on. The plaintiff succeeds, and then he finds that, not only has the defendant no money, but that his insurance company has no money either.
478
One has the difficult task, therefore, of balancing as best one can how far the interests of the public as a whole ought to be given precedence over the interests of the individual. This was, I think, fully recognised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, when he said:
"The practical difficulty, whatever course is pursued, is that the Board of Trade's sources of information in this delicate field must be kept confidential. It might be difficult for them to go into open court and reveal what they know, since not only might it be highly embarrassing in itself, but it might mean that a source of information of particular reliability would dry up in future".—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 12/12/66, col. 2108].
It is very difficult.
In those circumstances, what the Government have done is to draw a distinction between Clause 46, which determines whether or not somebody should be allowed to start a new insurance business, and Clause 50, which provides that the Board of Trade may revoke an authority in the case where the business has already started. In the second case, notwithstanding the difficulties, they have expressly provided for a legal right to make representations, and for an obligation on the part of the Board of Trade to give reasons. The difference between the two is, I think, very like the difference which faced the Conservative Government of 1939, when they were considering this problem under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act. In that Act they had four things to consider: first of all, that the Board might declare anybody to be an exempted dealer for the purposes of the Act; secondly, that the Board might authorise particular unit trust schemes as authorised schemes; thirdly, that the Board, where it had made somebody an exempted dealer, might revoke that; and fourthly, that where they had made a particular unit trust scheme an authorised scheme, they might revoke that.
Considering the position of the individual and the position of the public in relation to these four things, Parliament then took the view that two of them were in one class and two were in another. They took the view that where a man is already an exempted dealer and he is dealing, and where there is already a unit trust scheme which has been authorised (and, I think one might fairly

479
say, in this particular case, where somebody has been authorised to start an insurance business, and has started it), then to close them down is really to deprive them of a right of property; whereas, on the other hand, merely to refuse them the licence to start is entirely different. That was the view taken by Parliament in the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, in which, as I say, they drew a distinction between allowing somebody to start something and closing it down once it had started, and in which they provided that reasons must be given and representations could be made, not in the starting cases but in what I have called the closing down cases.
It has seemed to the Government that that is right, and that is why no right of representation is provided for in Clause 46, which is in many ways like any other case where you either give somebody a licence or you do not, and where it is discretionary. In spite of all the difficulties of confidential information, when it comes to Clause 50, which provides that the Board may revoke the authority, there is the specific provision that they must give their reasons and allow the representations to be made. It is for those reasons that the Government feel that they must resist this Amendment, and I hope that, having heard that explanation, and in view of the precedent set by a Conservative Government, the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
There is one additional point. There is now a marked safeguard for the individual which did not exist at the time of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, which is that in, I think, a fortnight's time there is to be introduced into this House (it has already passed through the other House) the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill. This case is exactly one in which, within the terms of that Bill, the Parliamentary Commissioner will be able to walk into the Board of Trade and look at any minutes or other documents, and cross-examine civil servants, to find out exactly what has happened—and that will have the great advantage that it will be done in private. There is, therefore, that additional safeguard, which I would also ask the noble Lord to take into account.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to
480
the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the explanation he has given for not including in Clause 48 any right of representation by the individual. Some of the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord are indeed powerful; but, at the same time, I hope that he will give an undertaking to give further consideration to this problem, because I think it may be possible to find a better solution to it than that which is now contained in the Bill.
My Lords, I follow the difficulties with regard to confidential information. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used a powerful argument. I also see the strength of the argument that this power to refuse authorisation must be contained in the Bill. I challenge neither of those propositions. But, my Lords, I do not think the case put forward by my noble friend is really met by reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner. It may be that the Board of Trade, acting perfectly bona fide, will be in receipt of confidential information about some individual and, acting on that information, refuse to give an authorisation to a company which in all other respects is a very respectable company, with respectable persons in it. The fact that authorisation is refused is bound to leak out, and so it seems possible that in many cases the effect of what the Board of Trade does, on information which they have received confidentially, and which they have believed, will be to cast something in the nature of a slur upon the reputation of all those concerned with that company.
But suppose the information which the Board have received in confidence is wrong, and that they act upon that perfectly sincerely, no one being in a position to blame them. The Parliamentary Commissioner will be able to find out on what information they have acted, but the person in respect of whom they have acted will not know; the company in respect of which they have acted will not know; and there will be no one who will ever, so far as I can see at the present moment, have an opportunity of satisfying the Board of Trade that the information on which they have acted is erroneous and should not be relied upon. It seems to me that a considerable injustice might result.
I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment, because I do not

481
think it really meets the case—and it certainly does not meet the points which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has advanced. At the same time, I am not now in a position to put forward a suggestion which might meet these difficulties. I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord. Lord Brown, would say that, between now and, perhaps, this Bill getting to another place, some further thought will be given to this problem. Perhaps they could see whether means can be devised which will safeguard this position and perhaps prevent the Board of Trade being misled by inaccurate but highly confidential information, and so, unwittingly and unintentionally, doing considerable injustice to an individual and, it may be, to many respectable people who do not know of that individual's record or do not know what suggestions there are against him but who are also affected by the same kind of impression arising from the refusal of the authorisation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount has asked me to reply on this one point. Certainly the Government are always prepared to consider anything fresh; but I must make it plain that I cannot hold out much hope. Our belief is that the earlier Government were right. True, the reason why a man is not made an authorised, exempted dealer might be because the Board of Trade regarded with suspicion one of his leading employees. Exactly the same thing applied to that case; and the Government are not at present satisfied that the Conservative Government were wrong.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having gone so fully into this question. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the purpose of my Amendment was not in any way to provide for the disclosure of confidential information. The purpose of the first part was to enable the Board of Trade to say to a person: "We do not consider you a fit and proper person to be associated with this kind of business. Have you anything to say?" The person may come along and say: "Here is my record. It is absolutely clean and above board."
482
The Board of Trade may then say: "Was your previous name not X? Were you not convicted of fraud in 1957?" There is no need to say from where they get their information; this is what they are told. Perhaps the man can answer satisfactorily; if he does not, he is not a fit and proper person. There is no reason why this conversation should go beyond the man and the Board of Trade.
The second part of the Amendment deals with the position arrived at once the Board of Trade have decided that he is not a fit and proper person, when they decide not to give the authorisation. Before this stage it has been under consideration. Once they decide that he is not a fit and proper person they will notify the company that they are not giving the authorisation, and they will say it is because they do not consider that so-and-so is a fit and proper person. They need give no further reason than that. Then the company can take what action it likes. This was the purpose of the Amendment. Whether I carried it out in words or not I do not know; but it seems to me a not unreasonable suggestion. I would certainly defer to such weight of opinion from the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and his predecessor, and I would not dream of pressing the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Power of Board of Trade to revoke authorisation for purposes of Section 44 on company's ceasing to carry on business]:
TILE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Brown. This is merely a drafting point. The beginning of Clause 46 says:
"The Board of Trade shall not issue under the last foregoing section an authorisation …"
So the verb associated with "authorisation" is "to issue". In line 15 it says: "nor shall they so issue an authorisation. …" On page 45, in the penultimate line, it says: "so issue an authorisation.…"; and in Clause 49, at the top, it says: "Where the Board of Trade issue…"When we come to this particular clause, the word is changed to "granted". It says: "the authorisation

483
is granted". So, for the sake of conformity, the Amendment proposed will change "granted" to "issued". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 25, leave out ("granted") and insert ("issued")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Substitution of new provisions for those of section 9 (audit of accounts) of the principal Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Brown. My noble friend Lord Mitchison on the Committee stage said that the words "such person" in the Bill as it stands were too vague. Accordingly, the Amendment is designed to deal with that point. The prescribed description will require auditors to be qualified as in Section 161 of the Companies Act. This is therefore, in substance, merely an improved piece of drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, leave out line 45 and insert ("in the prescribed manner by a person of the prescribed description,")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I ought to say "Thank you" and confess that I do not even remember the one good deed which I seem to have committed in the past year or so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Additional copy of accounts, &c., to be deposited by industrial or provident society]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Brown. If I may, I will refer also to the Amendments proposed under Clause 81, since they refer to the same point, the first Amendment being consequential to the second. The second, under Clause 81, extends the definition of "registered society" to include societies registered under Northern Ireland legislation corresponding with the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 so that they also are eligible to carry on insurance business in Great Britain by virtue of Clause 44 (1) (a). It would, however, serve no useful purpose for such societies to deposit with the
484
Registrar in Great Britain additional copies of the accounts required under the Insurance Act, and they are accordingly excluded by this Amendment, under Clause 58, from this requirement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 30, after ("society") insert ("(other than one registered in Northern Ireland)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Provision for securing that a company's solvency is maintained]:
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment in so far as it seeks to insert into the clause the expression "its assets". I was much encouraged with Amendment No. 13, moved yesterday by the Minister, which inserted this very expression in Clause 4. As for leaving out the expression "assets of its" to which very great exception was taken in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I should imagine that this would be in conformity with the Government's expressed intention so far as possible to write the Statutes in language that ordinary people understand and use. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 14, leave out ("assets of its") and insert ("its assets").—(Lord Airedale.)
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am told that it is as correct grammatically as "friends of his". Nevertheless, I agree that it does lack euphony. The trouble is that the Amendment changes the meaning. "Its assets" means all of its assets. The context requires that the value specified should be less than that of the whole of the assets, in most cases. As the meaning would be changed by the adoption of this Amendment I regret that I have to say that the Government cannot accept it. However, I join with the noble Lord in his objection to the euphony of the clause. I will attempt to get a more euphonious wording put in at a later stage.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Provision for security of information]:
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this Amendment is concerned with security of

485
information. The existing text of the clause does not achieve the intention of distinguishing two mutually exclusive classes, those who do and those who do not carry on industrial insurance business. The Amendment rectifies this situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 43, leave out ("carrying on business other than") and insert ("not carrying on").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Penalisation of furnishing false information]:
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment which sets out more clearly the documents in question and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 10, leave out from ("in") to ("any") in line 15 and insert—

(" (i) any account, balance-sheet, abstract or statement whereof copies are, by section 8 of the principal Act, required to be deposited with the Board of Trade;

(ii) any statement, agreement, deed or report whereof a certified copy is, by section 12 of that Act, required to be so deposited; or

(iii) any statement or declaration which is, by the last-mentioned section, required to be so deposited;").—(Lord Brown.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 19, leave out ("and liable") and insert—
(" (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Criminal liability of directors, &c.]:
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 28, leave out ("company") and insert ("body").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Interpretation of Part II]:
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this is another purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 7, after ("1965") insert ("or any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the additional phrase set out in this Amendment is necessary to avoid any ambiguity from the occasional use of the word "officer" in other than its principal context in this Bill—that of a company or body corporate. It appears, for example, in Clause 62(2) and (3) with reference to officers of the Board of Trade, and it is to make clear that the clause refers to officers of companies or bodies corporate that this Amendment is introduced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 9, after ("includes") insert ("except where the context otherwise requires)").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Fresh exemption from Moneylenders Acts 1900 to 1927 of persons carrying on business of banking]:
5.52 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to insert as a new paragraph:
" ( ) not include a person whose main business is to lend money on marine mortgages."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to exclude persons whose main business is to lend money on marine mortgages from the definition of "moneylenders" given in Clause 85(1). Companies which advance money on marine mortgages are not moneylenders in the accepted sense, but with to-day's high interest rates they have from time to time to charge what look like high rates of interest. I am told that this is quite inevitable if they are to continue their business.
The largest body which lends money in this way is the Ship Mortgage Corporation. I am told that the Corporation promoted a Private Bill to regularise their own position, but that it did not cover the smaller competitors. This, I understand, was Chapter 28 of 1962. The proposed Amendment will not open the

487
door to wholesale evasion of the Moneylenders Acts, or indeed to any evasion, because to secure this exemption a company must have the advancing of money on marine mortgages as its chief activity, and there can be only a handful of companies in this position. So long as high interest rates last, they are in considerable jeopardy, and as they perform a useful national function in financing ship construction they deserve some protection. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to agree and to give these small people protection. I quite understand that there may be other claims from other groups, but this seems a small and not undeserving group, and I hope that the Minister will see his way to accede to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 40, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I hope that the Government do not propose to accept this Amendment without some definition of what constitutes a marine mortgage. I do not think it is a well-known term of art by any means. It may be well known to people who practise some particular form of business, but I think it is liable to misunderstanding. I looked at this Amendment and said to myself, "What on earth does this mean?" We are now told that marine mortgages cover advances made in respect of ships in course of construction. I thought it must be some curious form of bottomry bond on a ship on a voyage. Bottomry is rather dead nowadays, even in this House, and I was not at all clear whether it covered cargo. I do not know what the Government are going to say, but I hope that these people, if they are individuals, return their profession or occupation in the Census as that of marine mortgagee. It is rather a nice term, and I should like to know what it means.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, it is possible that this Amendment has been moved under a misunderstanding. Perhaps I can help to clear up the matter if I put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. If a person who lends money on marine mortgages is a body corporate, that person can apply to the Board of Trade for exemption under Section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1900. My question
488
is: is the noble Lord aware of this, because it seems rather unlikely that he is introducing this Amendment in the interests of unincorporated marine mortgagees, which would be a rather small class of persons. Perhaps the noble Lord would be prepared to answer that question, and if there is a misunderstanding, he might wish to withdraw the Amendment. I have not completed what I have to say. I will sit down in order to get an answer, but I should like to be able to speak again when the noble Lord has answered the question.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, without prejudice to what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, may say afterwards, may I say that I was not aware of what he has said? Nevertheless, I hope that what he has to say will give me satisfaction.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was not aware of the point that I mentioned, he may see fit to withdraw the Amendment, because the unincorporated marine mortgagee may not exist. If he does exist, he is probably a very small man, and it may be that he is doing a bit of marine mortgage business and other business as well. If he is doing other business as well, the automatic grant of a licence because he is doing marine mortgage would leave us in a situation in which we should have no control over his other money lending activities. It seems to the Government that this may be a highly undesirable situation to bring about and they are bothered about it. We have not had much time to study this Amendment. We are prepared to do so, but the matter bristles with difficulties. As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has pointed out, we need a little more definition. I hope that in the light of the fact that if the person is an incorporated body he can already obtain the exemption if he applies to the Board of Trade, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect me to be an expert in this matter. Perhaps this is one of the matters that I might discuss with him when we meet. There is always the possibility of dealing with it on Third Reading, should that appear necessary. Perhaps the drafting is loose, and this also could be put right

489
on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER moved, after Clause 87, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Registration of Business Names Act 1916
". The Registration of Business Names Act 1916. shall be amended as follows:—
(1) In section 1, at end insert the following new paragraph:
'e) Every association of firms, individuals or companies, which individually are either companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 1948, or fall within the provisions of this section, whether or not such association is carrying on a business for profit;'
(2) In section 14, at end insert the following new subsection:
'(3) The Board of Trade may prohibit the registration under this Act and the use of any name by any association of firms, individuals or companies to which this Act applies, if in the opinion of the Board the registration or use of such name is undesirable'."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I withdrew my previous Amendment at Committee stage because the Government kindly agreed to reconsider my point. My present Amendment is the same, but incorporates a small drafting Amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As I covered my Amendment in some detail at Committee stage, I intend only to outline briefly the two proposed subsections, which are basically to protect the name, "Chambers of Commerce".
The first new subsection would give the Board of Trade, where necessary, powers to deal with unincorporated chambers under Section 1 of the Registration of Business Names Act 1916, and would cover the omissions in the Act as it stands at present by making a provision for the registration of associations of individuals who would have to register on their own account if they adopted a business name.
My second new subsection would give the Board of Trade the right, through the Registrar of Business Names, to refuse to register a name of an association of firms on the same grounds of undesirability as the Registrar of Companies is empowered to refuse to register the name of a company. The Company Law Committee
490
recognised this problem, and my Amendment implements paragraph 444 of the Jenkins Report. It would do no more than give the Board of Trade the same power in respect of unincorporated business associations, including chambers of commerce, as it already has and uses in respect of incorporated associations.
At the Committee stage of this Bill, I was told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that another Bill was being considered but, so far as I can gather from my more experienced friends in your Lordships' House, this could be some years away and dependent upon the amount of work the Government decide to deal with. I have had a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and he has fairly and frankly explained the Government's position regarding this Bill. I gathered at that time that he was in agreement in principle with the Amendment, but for the reasons we heard yesterday he was concerned that, if my Amendment were allowed to stand, the Government would have difficulty in resisting a spate of Amendments in another place, which in turn would delay the Bill's passage through Parliament. This is an argument with which I do not altogether agree. The speeches we have heard on this Bill have to a degree given me second thoughts.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has intimated that he can give me a satisfactory assurance that the Government will be introducing a second Companies Bill in the life of this Parliament, and that they will include my Amendment in the new Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his attitude and will permit the inclusion of my small, but so important, Amendment in this Bill, and thereby show Government support for those associations dedicated to the promotion of our export trade.
As the Prime Minister is to-day on the Continent doing his best to secure Britain's entry into the Common Market, I consider that this is a matter which should be dealt with now and not delayed for some years. The Common Market countries have a different conception of a chamber of commerce movement from ours in this country, and the sole purpose of my Amendment is to bring British chambers of commerce more into line with their European neighbours, and to

491
prevent unscrupulous people from taking advantage of the present position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 87, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Macpherson of Drumochter.)
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord has made it clear that the purpose of the new clause is merely to prevent the indiscriminate use of the name "Chamber of Commerce" by unincorporated associations. In the previous Committee debate, it was argued that overseas interests were misled about the status of some bodies calling themselves chambers of commerce, and that there should be a means of distinguishing between chambers of commerce and organisations, consisting mainly of retailers, which should be called "Chambers of Trade". It was also argued that it was important for the export trade because of the responsibility that chambers of commerce had in documentation for exports, particularly for the issue of certificates of origin.
I think it is important that the rather vague remarks I made on that occasion about the degree of control over the issue of certificates of origin and other documents should be made crystal clear to the House now. By the International Convention of 1923, relating to the Simplification of Customs Formalities, to which this country is a party, only authorised bodies can issue certificates of origin valid for international purposes. The authorisation of such bodies is already tightly controlled to ensure that they are of the required repute and status. If any body which was not authorised, whether calling itself a chamber of commerce or not, issued a certificate of origin, it would not be valid. There are some chambers of commerce properly so called which have not become authorised and, therefore, cannot issue valid certificates of origin. The position has been carefully considered, but it does not seem that extending the Board of Trade's power under the Registration of Business Names Act would be relevant so far as certificates of origin and the export trade are concerned.
The other leg of the argument is concerned with the status of chambers of commerce overseas. If some of these
492
bodies use the name, although they are not entitled to do so because they are not of adequate status, and are included in the band, this may lower the status of other British chambers of commerce overseas. I do not want to deny the point, but I do not think that this should be taken too seriously at the moment. There is not a large number of these bodies. I think that it is the potentialities of the situation that may be worrying the noble Lord, and I believe these to be under control.
Statements have already been made about the intention of the Government to introduce a second Companies Bill in the life of this Parliament. I can add to that that the Government will undertake to consider very seriously the inclusion in that second Bill of provisions to meet the arguments advanced by the noble Lord. I think he is aware that I cannot give him a firm commitment. I cannot say definitely that if the second Bill comes this will be included, but I will go so far as I can without openly saying it. I hope that, in the light of that assurance, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of Schedule 8 to the Companies Act 1948]:
LORD BROWN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak to Amendment No. 73 and at the same time to Nos. 74 to 77 and Nos. 88 to 92. These are all purely drafting Amendments. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 inserts a new paragraph, 5A, in Schedule 8 to the principal Act. The new paragraph requires a company to give information in its accounts about those of its unquoted investments that are not shown at a valuation. These investments will be in bodies corporate which may or may not be companies within the Companies Act meaning of that term. The Amendments substitute bodies corporate, or its equivalent, for companies in the places in the paragraph where that, rather than companies, is the correct term to use. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 33, leave out ("companies") and insert. ("bodies corporate").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("companies") and insert ("bodies").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 3, leave out ("companies'") and insert ("bodies' ").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 7, leave out ("companies") and insert ("bodies").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 77.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 12, leave out ("companies") and insert ("bodies").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 78,relates to fears which were expressed in Committee that the words used in Schedule 8 to the1948 Act, as amended by this Bill, would require a company to charge all of its tax, including tax arising from capital gains, to revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moved Amendments designed to ensure that the charges to be shown or to be deducted were charges properly charged to revenue, and I explained that the provisions as drafted did not have the effect the noble Lord feared: that they would leave companies free to omit from the charge to revenue such tax arising from capital gains as they considered appropriate. Nevertheless, I agreed that the wording of the provisions should be examined, and I undertook to have that done.
This and the next Amendment make the first provision read that there
494
shall be shown in a company profit and loss account
" the amount of the charge to revenue for United Kingdom corporation tax … and the amount of the charge for taxation imposed outside the United Kingdom of profits, income and (so far as charged to revenue) capital gains."
This makes it clear that what tax arising from capital gains is or is not charged to revenue lies within the discretion of directors. With that degree of discretion in the Bill, and it having been made clear beyond a peradventure that this is the intention, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 1, after ("charge") insert ("to revenue").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 7, after (" and") insert (" (so far as charged to revenue)").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to the undertaking given on Committee stage that the requirement of companies to publish the amount of the rents paid would be deleted. I think that at this late stage this is probably all the explanation that is required for the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 16 leave out from the beginning to (" sums") in line 17.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I say that we regard this Amendment as important to a good many people, and a good deal of importance has been attached to it, particularly by retailers. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having met us on this point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.17 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to paragraph 15:
"( ) This paragraph shall not apply to a company if no shares or debentures of the company or of a body corporate of which it is the subsidiary have been quoted on a recognised stock exchange or offered (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere) to the public for subscription or purchase."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment on which the noble Lord apparently has not felt able to meet us. The purpose of the Amendment is to exempt companies and bodies corporate of which they are subsidiaries, where their shares or debentures have not been quoted on a recognised Stock Exchange, and where they have not offered shares to the public for subscription or purchase, from having to disclose their turnover for the financial year in their accounts by way of a note, if not otherwise shown. Again, this is one of the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee. There are many smaller companies which live in perpetual fear that the disclosure of their turnover may make them a target for a take-over bid.
The reason why the Jenkins Committee excluded them was because they did not think that this was information which was of particular interest to creditors, and creditors would not base their estimate of the creditworthiness of a company on a note as to turnover in their accounts; but they felt that it would leave them open to take-over bids or, indeed, to a degree of disclosure which might be embarrassing. The sort of situation these small companies have in mind is where the company has, say, only one store in a town, and disclosure of its turnover will show exactly what goes on in that store, whereas it may be in competition with a chain of shops, or with a company which has two or three stores, so that the actual turnover of any one of those stores is not revealed.
This seems to be a reasonable case. Again, I quite understand the opposite argument: that where you have big companies, it may be relevant to know what their turnover is. This can be disclosed in other ways should the Government want to know it, and it is no reason why it should be made available to all and sundry. The turnover would be disclosed, in all probability, in the directors' report, although I am not certain whether it has to be. The point is that it would not have to be disclosed in the accounts. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to concede this point now. We have already gone some way towards a concession, or at any rate we have persuaded the House to accept the Amendment which would exclude the breakdown
496
of turnover, and therefore it seems not unreasonable that the total figure of turnover should also be excluded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 7, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.20 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. In the first case, of course, it will deprive the public of details of turnover of a number of large companies. There are so many of these large companies which are still unquoted. The noble Lord suggested that it would not be of interest to creditors. I think he quoted the Report on this matter. I am surprised that the Report should say so. I am not going to challenge his quotation, but I reserve the right to suggest that it is of importance to creditors to know the turnover of the companies with which they are dealing. I should think it is one of the most important criteria by which they can judge whether the credit they are extending is justified or not.
The noble Lord suggested that if figures of turnover are available to the public, a small firm may become a target for a take-over bid. This question puzzles me. Take-over bids of small, privately-owned shops, or something like that, can be resisted with great ease if they are in the ownership of a man and his wife or a small family; there is no difficulty about it at all. The take-over bid may be a matter which is greatly welcomed. They might like to capitalise the business, get the money out and hand over to someone else. It is not a tragedy or menace to their own liberty; they can make up their own minds.
The people menaced by take-over bids are directors of companies which are not within their own financial control but are owned by others, when they want to remain running the business for the shareholders and fear that if a take-over bid comes about the family or a small group of shareholders will accept the bid and they might lose their jobs. However, I do not think that that is a justified attitude on the part of people who are managing a business. I therefore believe that the entire argument about the danger

497
of exposing turnover and consequential approaches by people who wish to buy the business does not hold water.
The other arguments in favour of retention of the clause as it stands are concerned with the growing need for economic information about businesses of this country. We really have to be concerned about this in the future. We have a need for much more information about the nature of our economy. This really is important, and I do not think we should hesitate at this stage, and take the step of saying that these non-public companies should not have to disclose this information. I do not think the case for secrecy has been made out. The last point in support of that is that it is far more commonplace in countries such as the United States for people to talk about their business, its details and its turnover. I am not certain whether they are forced to publish their turnover or not, but in most businesses it is well known by competitors, and even by members of the public nearby. It might have an extremely good effect on many of our small businesses if one chap knew that the chap down the road, with the Fame frontage and staff, was turning over two or three times as much as he was.
It would be a great stimulus to the better use of facilities, labour and everything else if people knew how others were doing. Knowledge of how well others are doing seems to me to be a good basis for competition. On that argument alone, I think it would be worth while retaining the provision as it stands. I hope the noble Lord is listening carefully, because I think these are really important arguments, and I hope he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given of the Government's attitude on this matter. My own point of view is that, unless a clear reason can be given for the disclosure of this information, this is a matter which ought not to be disclosed or need not be disclosed. I should say, rather, that there ought not to be a requirement that it should be disclosed in the case of the classes of companies about which we are talking. I recognise that there are the peaks, so to speak, but they are relatively
498
rare. I do not know what the proportion is. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me the proportion of the companies with a large turnover on which he bases his case. But I should think they represent a very small proportion of the total number of companies which we are talking about.
The next argument of the noble Lord is on this question of information. The noble Lord says we want to know a great deal more about it. The one thing that has been puzzling me throughout is how he envisages all this information is to be collated. Is there any intention on the part of the Government to collate all this information? Are they going to build up statistics on turnover through the accounts lodged with the Registrar? If not, do the universities and so on write in for copies of all the reports from all the companies in the country? I should like the noble Lord to justify the argument he has been putting up, that this information will be of great value in building up knowledge of our economy.
I can quite see that it may in some cases provide a very valuable comparison if this is done, although I should have thought that this kind of information in general terms is probably fairly well known: people will know who is prospering and who is not. I can see that argument, but what I do not see is this general argument that all this will lead to a great burst of information about the economy of our country, or how it is going to be achieved. If the noble Lord can answer those two points I have raised in particular I shall be very grateful.
There clearly is not any widespread support in the House for this particular Amendment, and in those circumstances I do not feel that it would be right to press it, but I think, all the same, that the House would like to have some substantiation of the points I have raised. I concede the advantages of comparison as between retailers. I am not so certain that this will always work particularly fairly. As I have said, in the case of the single unit the turnover of that unit has to be disclosed, whereas the turnover does not have to be disclosed by multiple units in competition with it, and to that extent the single unit is at a disadvantage. I think that has to be recognised. We are creating a considerable amount of

499
disadvantages, and I have yet to be convinced that there are comparable advantages, and I hope the noble Lord will indicate what they are.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, with the consent of the House, because I am speaking a second time on this Amendment, I will as briefly as I possibly can try to give a picture of this. I think it is within the memory of the House that on the last Budget Day the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave certain figures about the numbers of people coming into employment for the first time. If I remember rightly, of the one million who had come into employment over the previous five years, 140,000 had gone into manufacturing industry, and the balance into the distributive and service trades. I mention this fact to suggest that distribution of employment between various types of business in the country is becoming a matter of very great consequence to our economy. We are no longer, happily, in the state we were in in the 'thirties in regard to employing our people. We have over-employment, though not at this precise moment of time, I admit, and we are concerned with the efficiency with which we employ people, because this relates to the basis of our standard of living in the future.
If we are going to know more about this, if we are going to enable our universities or statisticians from the Board of Trade or elsewhere in the Government society to get hold of the facts which will lead us to better policies, we must have an availability of information of the turnover of small businesses, the type of information which is crucial to studies of this sort. I cannot answer the noble Lord's question whether the Government are going to collate all these facts. I do not think they will. They are available for the sort of research that I think will be of great importance to our economy as time moves forward into the future. I should not like to miss the opportunity in this Bill of making this information available.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the legislation, the name of which I do not recall at the moment, provides that the details of the information given must not be revealed if they will reveal the turnover
500
or any particular information about an individual firm? The purpose of this legislation is to achieve the statistics as a whole, and they are all given confidentially. The whole basis of the Act is confidential information. Is the noble Lord seriously telling the House that the source of information for Government statistics is the accounts deposited with the Registrar? Is he going to collate the information from them? We have not been told this so far.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I ask two questions which arise from these very fascinating discussions? They are quite simple. Have the Board of Trade a computer and has the Conservative Central Office a computer? Does either of them ever use them?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I think, with respect, there is some misunderstanding here. These figures will be available at Companies House and they are available not only to the public but to Her Majesty's Government, or to universities, and so on. I do not understand the noble Lord's concern. What have I to assure him about? If the figures are at Companies House they are universally available to society, subject to payment of the right sums or to visits. I do not see what the anxiety is about.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am merely asking whether it is the practice now for the Government to collate information from accounts deposited with the Registrar. If it is the practice now, if statistics are compiled from those returns now, well, that is sufficient answer; but if they are not, as I believe they are not, compiled from that source, are they going to be so compiled in the future? That is my question.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I shall need notice of the question whether the statistics which we use are to any extent compiled from the records at Companies House. I am sorry I do not know the answer, but I will get it. As to whether these records are going to be used in the future, I should think there is no question at all that they will be used in due course of time. I do not know of any specific Government plans to use them now. The point is that if one provides them in these returns, they are

501
available for use and will be valuable, and I have no doubt they will be used.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, there are two interests here. If one is a big company one says, "Of course we want to have all this information on the turnover of the little companies, because it will help us to rationalise them"—I am using the kindest word I can think of. If I were a small company I should not want to give that information, because there is no doubt that it is going to be more useful to the big people than it is to the small. I personally am on the side of trying to make the structure of British economy efficient. If I had to weigh up one against the other, I should say we had better have this information and we had better hope it is wisely and skilfully used for the purpose of building a more efficient structure in our economy. But do not let us pretend that this is not going to be very inconvenient for many small people. It is. This is one of those very, very difficult things to weigh up. I think my noble friend would be well advised to let the other place have a "go" at it.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to repeat my question? I gave up any hope of ever discovering what happens in the Conservative Central Office. I should like to know the extent to which the Board of Trade uses these computers for dealing with information of this kind. If my noble friend cannot give the answer now, would he be kind enough to let me have a letter about it?
LORD BROWN: Yes, my Lords.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to paragraph 15:
" ( ) This paragraph shall not require the disclosure of turnover attributable to business carried on outside the United Kingdom, or transacted with persons outside the United Kingdom, if its disclosure would in the opinion of the directors be harmful to the interests of the company and the Board of Trade consent to the information's not being disclosed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was a point about which the noble Lord made" favourable noises", if I may put it that way, at an earlier stage. I think he said on Committee stage that if the Amendment that I then moved had been
502
limited to business transacted outside the country, he might have taken a different view. I do not think he committed himself too far. The purpose of the Amendment is clear on the face of it. It is that so far as turnover is concerned the paragraph will not require the disclosure of turnover attributable to business carried on outside the United Kingdom, or transacted with persons outside the United Kingdom, if this disclosure would, in the opinion of the directors, be harmful to the interests of the company and the Board of Trade consent to the information's not being disclosed.
I do not for one moment suppose there will be a great many cases of this kind, but where there are cases it may be that there might be significant damage to the company, and to the country, if the information were disclosed. The Amendment is to safeguard this position. Even if there were only one case, it would still be worth putting the Amendment in to safeguard the position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 7, at end insert the said subparagraph.(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, aims to make certain that a dispensation obtained by a holding company with the consent of the Board of Trade is not restricted by the wording of Section 15(2) of Schedule I, which calls for disclosure of the turnover of the company. If this is so, it is unnecessary, so I am advised. If any doubt remains, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that a company can also claim exemption in given circumstances from disclosure of turnover of a subsidiary under Section 150(2)(b)(ii) of the principal Act. That states that group accounts need not deal with a subsidiary of a company if the company directors are of the opinion that the result would be harmful to the business of the company or any of its subsidiaries, subject to Board of Trade consent.
I think, having examined this matter closely, the noble Lord, if he looks into it, will find it is not necessary to have this Amendment to establish the point he seeks to establish. I hope, in the light of this considered advice I am giving, which I have drawn from other sources, he will not press the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, indeed not, if the noble Lord is satisfied that this is not necessary. I think we are at one on the purpose of this Amendment, and therefore I have pleasure in withdrawing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved, in paragraph 17, in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of the proposed new paragraph 14A of Schedule 8 to the Companies Act 1948, after "income and" to insert "(so far as charged to revenue)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 13A of Schedule 8 of the principal Act, as amended by the Bill, contains the basic provision that a company shall show in its accounts the value of its turnover. Paragraphs 15(7) and 16(3) and 20A elaborate on this basic requirement when the company is a member of a group. Paragraph 15(7) requires a holding company, if it does not draw up its profit and loss account in the form of a consolidated profit and loss account for the group, to show the proportions in which its turnover is divided between business done with its subsidiaries and business done with persons outside the group.
Paragraph 16(3) requires a subsidiary company to show the proportions in which its turnover is divided between business done with its holding company and fellow subsidiaries and business done with persons outside the group. Paragraph 20A requires a holding company which prepares consolidated accounts, if it is itself a subsidiary company or if it has omitted some of its subsidiaries from the consolidation, to show the proportion in which the turnover of the companies within the consolidation is divided between, on the one hand, business done with companies in the larger group of which the reporting company is a member and with companies in its own group but outside the consolidation, and, on the other hand, business done with persons outside the two groups. With some qualifications, the three paragraphs can be regarded as requiring a company to show the division of its turnover between internal turnover and external turnover. I have given this rather formal description because I want to get the reasons for the Amendment on the Record.
The examination of this subject by the Government has led us to the conclusion that while there might be marginal value in requiring turnover to be split, in fact the trouble that companies will be put to in dividing their turnover in this way is not justified. Therefore the Amendments are designed to remove altogether the requirement to split turnover as between turnover done with fellow subsidiaries and other parts of the company and turnover done with, so to speak, the outside world. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 31, at end insert (" (so far as charged to revenue)").—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has now got this matter on the Record, and we should certainly like to look at the Record. I am bound to say that I found it exceedingly difficult to follow what he said—in fact, I wonder whether once again he was not moving the right Amendment. However, I hope that he has done so. If we may have that assurance, we shall certainly raise no objection to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 84.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 1, leave out paragraph 19.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move No. 85.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 9, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—
(" 20. At the end of paragraph 16(1), there shall he added the words' and the aggregate amount of assets consisting of shares in fellow subsidiaries.' ").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 34, leave out paragraph 23.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, leave out lines 6 to 9.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Form of Schedule 8 to the Companies Act, 1948, as amended by this Act]:
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 36, leave out ("companies") and insert ("bodies corporate").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 46, leave out ("companies") and insert ("bodies").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 49, leave out ("companies'") and insert ("bodies'").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 3, leave out ("companies") and insert ("bodies").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 6, leave out ("companies") and insert ("bodies").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 6, after ("charge") insert ("to revenue").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 12, after ("and") insert (" (so far as charged to revenue)").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 29, leave out from the beginning to ("sums") in line 30.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 4, after ("and") insert (" (so far as charged to revenue)").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, leave out lines 13 to 18.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move the new paragraph 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, leave out lines 19 to 36 and insert—
(" 16.—(1) The balance sheet of a company which is a subsidiary of another body corporate, whether or not it is itself a holding company, shall show the aggregate amount of its indebtedness to all bodies corporate of which it is a subsidiary or a fellow subsidiary and the aggregate amount of indebtedness of all such bodies corporate to it, distinguishing in each case between indebtedness in respect of debentures and otherwise, and the aggregate amount of assets consisting of shares in fellow subsidiaries.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a company shall be deemed to be a fellow subsidiary of another body corporate if both are subsidiaries of the same body corporate but neither is the other's.")—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, leave out lines 8 to 40.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, leave out lines 4 to 6.—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved, after Schedule 2, to insert the following new Schedule:
"Amendments of the Companies Act 1948 Consequential on the Introduction of Shares of no Par Value
1. In paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section 2, in place of the words after 'state' to the end of the paragraph there shall be inserted—

'(i) in the case of a company the shares in which are to have a nominal or par value, the amount of the share capital with which the company proposes to be registered and the division thereof into shares of a fixed amount; and

(ii) in the case of a company the shares in which are to be without nominal or par value, the number of shares which the company is to be authorized to issue;'

2. In subsection (3) of section 47, at the end there shall be added the words 'or, in the case of a share without nominal or par value, five per cent. of the total consideration to be paid for the share'.
3. In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 52, after the words 'the number and' there shall be inserted the words 'in the case of shares having a nominal or par value'.
4. In subsection (1) of section 56, after the words 'Where a company issues shares' there shall be inserted the words 'having a nominal or par value'.
5. In subsection (1) of section 57, after the words 'to issue at a discount shares' there shall be inserted the words 'having a nominal or par value'.
6. Section 58 shall apply in relation to the redemption of preference shares which are without nominal or par value—

(i) with the substitution for paragraphs (c) and (d) of the proviso to subsection (1) of the following paragraphs—

'(c) the premium, if any, payable on redemption (that is to say, the amount by which the consideration payable on redemption exceeds the consideration payable on issue), must have been provided for out of the profits of the company before the shares are redeemed;

(d) where any such shares are redeemed otherwise than out of the proceeds of a fresh issue, there shall out of profits which would otherwise have been available for dividend be transferred to a reserve fund, to be called "the capital redemption reserve fund" a sum equal to the amount or value of the consideration payable on the issue of the shares redeemed, and the provision of this Act relating to the reduction of the share capital of a company shall, except as provided in this section, apply as if the capital redemption reserve fund were part of the stated capital of the company'.

(ii) as if for the reference in subsection (3) to the amount of the company's authorized share capital there were substituted a reference to the number of shares which the company is authorized to issue;

508

(iii) as if in subsection (4) for the words 'to issue shares up to the nominal amount of the shares redeemed' there were substituted the words 'to issue shares for a total consideration the amount or value of which does not exceed the total amount or value of the consideration payable on the issue of the shares redeemed'.

7. In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 61, after the words of such amount' there shall be inserted the words in the case of shares having a nominal or par value'; and paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of that subsection shall not apply in the case of a company the shares of which are without nominal or par value.
8. In subsection (1) of section 63 the reference to the registered capital of the company shall be construed, in relation to a company the shares of which are without nominal or par value, as a reference to the number of shares which the company is authorized to issue.
9.—(1) The principal Act shall have effect in relation to a company the shares of which are without nominal or par value subject to the modifications hereafter in this paragraph set out.
(2) References to a fraction of the paid-up capital or issued share capital of a company shall be construed in relation to a company the shares of which are without nominal or par value as references to a fraction of the total number of shares comprised in that capital.
(3) References in whatever terms to a fraction in value of the shares or any class of shares of a company, or of any part of the shares or any class of shares of a company, shall be construed as references to the same fraction in number of those shares.
(4) References in whatever terms to the number, description and amount of any shares or to the number and amount of any shares shall be construed in relation to shares without nominal or par value as if the references to the amount of the shares were omitted.
(5) References in whatever terms to the amount of the share capital, or nominal or issued share capital, of a company, or any part thereof, shall be construed as references to the number of shares which are comprised in that capital or that part thereof, as the case may be; and references to the amount of any such capital which is partly paid up shall be construed as references to the number of shares comprised in that capital which are partly paid up, the amount paid up on each share and the amount unpaid.
(6) The proviso to subsection (2) of section 141 shall have effect as it has effect in the case of a company not having a share capital.
(7) Subsection (1) of section 154 shall have effect as if for sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) there were substituted—
'(ii) holds shares in its equity share capital which together represent more than half of the total voting rights of all members of the company at a meeting of the company at which all the members are present.'
(8) In section 64, paragraph (a) shall not apply.
(9) In the Eighth Schedule, for sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2 there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
'(c) the amount of the stated capital account'."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this new Schedule makes amendments of the Companies Act 1948, consequential on the introduction of the provision regarding shares of no par value. As this is the last Amendment, perhaps I may, in moving it, thank the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for the gallant way in which he has stood up to this long Bill. I think he has earned our gratitude. I know what it is like to have to deal with a Bill when one is suddenly plunged into office, and I am sure that we all sympathise with him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 2, insert the said new Schedule.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY COMMITTEES
6.48 p.m.
LORD CROOK LORD CROOK rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they contemplate taking any additional action in view of the slow and disappointing progress made by industry in setting up Joint Safety Committees, and the deterioration in the accident position in industry as a whole, as disclosed by the Annual Reports on the work of Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate in 1965 (Cmnd. 3080 and Cmnd. 3081).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to keep your Lordships at this late hour, but I am sure you will acquit me of any blame, owing to the long time which our business has taken. I would have withdrawn the Question tonight, but for the fact that it started as a Motion on the Order Paper in October at the beginning of the "Stop Accidents Year." It deteriorated into an Unstarred Question, and this is the first occasion on which we have had the chance of getting it on to the Order Paper; and your Lordships will know that the House has a lot of business ahead of it. I should like to say that two or three of my noble friends who would have spoken have had
510
to leave on account of the lateness of the hour. For that reason, I will add a little to what I had intended to say, although I will endeavour not to keep your Lordships too long.
Your Lordships will not need me to remind you that one of the major problems of modern medicine is what can only be called the disease of accidents. Indeed, it has got beyond being a disease—it is an epidemic. To-day, many thousands of men, women and children lie in hospital wards recovering from injuries. It is estimated that 13,000 beds are occupied in United Kingdom hospitals every day of the week by accident cases. That, my Lords, is sufficient to fill 26 good sized hospitals. Every year, 309 million working days are lost through accidents, and illness arising from accidents; and deaths by accident are greater in number than deaths from either coronary disease or from cancer. I give that not as a statement of my own, but on the evidence of the Medical Research Council.
It is in the light of this serious position about accidents that I have ventured from time to time to bring to your Lordships' attention the question of accidents in the home and in industry, as well as on the roads; because the roads are always given publicity and too often the great causation of accidents in the homes, and in industry, is completely forgotten.
The economic loss to this country of accidents has been estimated to be £500 million annually. So it is to-day that I ask this Question relating to industrial accidents disclosed in the valuable and informative Reports of the Chief Inspector of Factories at the Ministry of Labour. That Inspectorate has gone a long way since it was set up in 1844 and dealt with the problem of children of less than nine years of age working in textile factories. Over the years, the legislation of Parliament, backed by excellent work in the Inspectorate, has caused a great decline in serious accidents that might otherwise have occurred in factories. But however true that might have been in earlier years, the truth is that in our recent modern society we now have this alarming trend of more and more accidents. The figure for 1965, disclosed in the Report of the Chief Inspector, has reached a new high, 293,717, compared with 268,648 in 1964,

511
an increase of 9.3 per cent. which follows an increase of 31.5 per cent. in the preceding year. On present trends, the next Report of the Chief Inspector is likely to give us a figure of over 300,000.
I know that the Minister who is to reply will say that some of these figures in the Report are not completely reliable for comparative purposes, because the Inspectorate themselves during the year under review were busy improving the standard of reporting by people in factories, and that the figure may have been inflated in the course of this statistical year. But if that is true—and I accept that it is true—then it must be true that there are still accidents which are not reported, and it must be true that there have been accidents in past years that have not been reported. Of course I realise that there are more people at work, and that more people at work must always mean more people at risk.
But lest I make comparisons which are difficult, let me go back to 1962 and compare the figure for that year with the figure of 293,000 to-day. In 1962 the figure was only 190,000. It is a pretty shocking thing that anybody can stand here and use the word "only" in respect of the death and dismembering of many fellow citizens, the creation for many of them of lifelong misery and, what is more, lifelong misery for families for whom they were the breadwinner. Of course the position is really even worse, because the figures of the Factories Inspectorate show only the accidents which have to be notified to them in the factories covered by the Factories Act and, therefore, do not give a complete picture of this mounting tide of human distress.
We can take a sidelong peep at other statistics on the table in front of your Lordships by looking at the figure given by the Minister of Social Security as to the total number of applications made for industrial injuries benefit in the same year. Regrettably, that figure amounts to very nearly one million—to be exact, in the year in question, 957,000, making it clear that we can expect the next figure to be well over one million. If we looked at that figure with no regard to emotional concern it must disturb us, but I think as Parliamentarians we must
512
be disturbed by the effect on the nation, what it means to productivity and to the economy of the country.
At the last Industrial Safety Study Conference of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the latest figures were presented by those responsible, and I should like to give them to your Lordships in order to put into perspective this terrible economic factor. The loss of productivity resulting from industrial accidents in the year is £104 million; the overall cost to industry, including the replacement of labour and the cost of make-up of pay is £228 million; and the total cost to society, including the Industrial Injuries Act benefits to which I have referred, is no less than £325 million in the year.
Most of these accidents could have been avoided by co-operation between employers and workpeople. Some of the big employers do everything they can. But we must never forget that a large number of factories in this country of ours are small in size. As a nation we are based on small factories, going back 100 years. It is not a bad idea to refer to 100 years ago, because many of the premises in which people work are old-fashioned. They were not built for the modern industrial processes carried on in them, and they are dark and often totally unfitted for the jobs to be performed in them. Many of the small employers just do not bother anyway. As the Chief Inspector says in his Report, the damage and danger to our youth, newly employed, is shocking. Young people are put on to jobs with no training at all. The most that they can expect is that the older men who have been on the job for years will teach them. They must pick it up as they go along by watching. And many of these older men no longer have the habits of safety in the conditions in which they work; they have got into bad, slipshod, unsafe habits. So the lad learns not only what is good, but a lot that is bad as well.
I would be the first to say that the 1964 Industrial Training Act has provided some improvement. As the years go on it will provide more, but it will be a long time before we have the full effect of it. The Chief Inspector says:
"While a lot has been done by the larger firms in improving safety training, little or no progress has been reported in the smaller establishments. Instances were reported far

513
too often of young people being almost pushed into danger as a result of false economies or to maintain production."
That is a very serious indictment made by the Chief Inspector of Factories in this country.
I should like to be clear, and say that admittedly some of the accidents are due to the complete carelessness of workers themselves. By all means let us blame the employers when fingers are cut off on a bacon-slicing machine; but we cannot blame the employer when it is a toe that is cut off, because, as the Chief Inspector points out, that could have happened only through the operative standing on the machine to open a window.
Similarly, I was interested, and a little horrified, to read that scalping is now back with us fairly badly. Some of us, in the first year when we put women to work in munition factories, in 1940, knew of this grave scalping danger, when women's hair was caught in belts, and so on. I was astonished, and at the same time amused, when I read that the Chief Inspector had offered a piece of blue ribbon to one of the men he saw in a factory where scalping had taken place. More seriously, I was glad to see that he had gone on to suggest that the men should do now what the women did in the war; that was, to wear a little cap which was given to them. He suggested that the men should take such a cap, preferably with a peak in front, and wear it to avoid this new danger that has come with the long-haired brigade.
But, my Lords, all the posters of factory inspectors, and all the exhortations on the walls, will not be any good unless the atmosphere is right in the work place. The Chief Inspector touches on one point that I know to be quite real, that of maintenance of production; when he refers to the demand for speedier production. From my personal experience I know how, in the growth in recent years of the desires to speed up production, there have been agreements between employers and unions for payment by tonnage, or alternatively by output per hour, or by bonuses on the output for a day or a week, with the result that we can expect: that the employer who wants to increase exports is pressing the men, and the men are not worrying about being pressed. They are most happy to work faster and to take the risks because of the
514
bigger take-home pay they will get. They take off safety guards: they get bigger pay, and the country gets bigger exports. But I am trying to show that what we gain in one way we lose in another by the sacrifice of life and limb. I am one who refuses to accept the philosophy that a price we must pay for increased productivity in this country is the loss of life and limb.
It is now ten years since the Minister of Labour's Joint Advisory Committee, representative of both the trade unions and the employers, recommended the establishment of the works safety committees which I mention in my Question. Yet the Chief Inspector's Report has this to say:
"I am sorry to say there has been little progress since then"—
"then" being ten years ago—
"and according to our estimates the number of safety committees has not increased as much as had been hoped for."
The Ministry of Labour statement in another place last November is undoubtedly right; that joint consultative machinery on voluntary lines is much to be preferred to compulsory committees. But it is tragic, and in my view a great reflection on industry in this country, upon both the trade unions and the employers, that the Minister had to goon in that statement to say that, since progress in the past has been completely disappointing, he had decided that unless there is satisfactory progress over the next few years he will feel obliged to seek power to require the establishment of machinery for joint consultation. I echo his final words; that he hoped progress might be made in the next two or three years so as to avoid such legislation.
That brings me to the nub of my Question to the Government to-day: What is it now proposed to do in order to try to ensure that what we have failed to achieve in the last ten years is achieved by voluntary effort, so that we may avoid this compulsory Act of Parliament. I hope, of course, that the effort will be stimulated by the imaginative effort that has been made jointly by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which I am honoured to be a vice-president, and the Ministry of Labour in the appointment of seven regional safety organisers, the cost of whom is being paid for by the Ministry and ROSPA jointly,

515
to a maximum of £16,000 per annum for the first three years, after which we all hope that it will be a self-supporting scheme. One of their tasks is to stimulate top management as to safety. As the Duke of Edinburgh, our President for the Jubilee Year of ROSPA said on the opening of this year as "Stop Accidents Year":
"Experience shows that only a strong lead from top management can ensure that safety precautions are taken seriously at all levels. There is no magic about a good safety record; any company can achieve one provided everyone is conscious of the need to stamp out unnecessary accidents at all times."
If one turns then to the second Report one finds the same kind of considerations about industrial health. I would commend the words of the Chief Inspector, who said that the maintenance of a healthy working environment is just as important as promoting safety or preventing accidents. This, he said, was sometimes forgotten by industry, but it was well worth reminding them of it, in view of the constantly changing methods of production and the introduction of technological methods. Without doubt this second Report on industrial health records the constant and unremitting work of the specialised inspectors in promoting and protecting health in the ever-changing industrial environment, a change which is bringing new hazards to health and throws up new problems for the doctors.
There was only one matter omitted from the Report that I should have liked to see included. That was a reference to the work of the Medical Commission on Accidents, which was set up in 1963, arising out of the National Convention on Accident Prevention. That has had to run on a budget of voluntary contributions. Some Members of your Lordships' House and myself have ben associated with this: those connected with I.C.I., Fisons, Unilever, and companies like that, who have put their money in; and the Board of which I had the honour to be Chairman, the National Dock Labour Board, was one of the supporters. But the Commission's total income has never exceeded £10,000 in any year. They have in hand material schemes, involving co-operation between medical bodies and hospitals, for which they need an additional £20,000 a year.
I am not going to pretend that I expect the Minister to-night, on an Unstarred Question, to start "ante-ing up" money for anything like this. But I want to get the point on record. I recognise that the Accident Commission is dealing not only with industrial accidents, the subject of this Question, but also with accidents on the roads, accidents in the home, in sport and the like. But I think that there have been too few schemes of this kind in this country for us to see this one imaginative effort founder solely for the sake of such a small amount of money. I expect nothing from the Minister to-night, but I would ask him to make a note to see that his colleagues in the Government think about this Commission when next they are looking at some of these problems.
I know that I have spoken for too long. This is partly, as I said, because there are others who have not been able to stay, and there is so much in the Report to which one would like to refer. For instance, I welcome the decision of the Inspectorate to detail inspectors to undertake surveys in particular subjects. At the same time, I realise that that means that the Chief Inspector is detaching inspectors from their normal jobs just at a time when those jobs are growing more and more. I am very clear that the Inspectorate has been starved of manpower for many years. The total authorised personnel, in my view, has never been enough to do the job as most of us connected with the trade union movement would like to see it done.
If one looks at the details it is bad enough that the totalauthorised establishment is still only 517; but it is even worse to read that, of that establishment, only 481 were in post last year, and that over that last year the increase has been only seven from the 1964 figure of 474. So, with what I regard as a minimum authorised establishment, they are still 36 under the number they could have. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that one of the things which the Ministry of Labour can do to deal with this tragic situation is, if not to put up the established cadre, at least to see that the missing number is made up. There is so much that could be said on these valuable Reports, but the hour is late. I might have wished for a debate instead of an Unstarred Question on this important

517
subject, so that I could hear some of my colleagues in industry who have clear views on the subject, but at this time I must be content with this Question which I now beg leave to ask.
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for initiating this debate and thereby focusing attention on a very grave state of affairs. I must confess that he dealt with it in a very gentle way. I feel much more indignant than he does about it. Perhaps my noble friend feels indignant, but he did not express indignation with the same force that I feel tempted to do. It seems paradoxical that in an age of great technical progress we are failing to provide adequate protection to workers in comparatively simple processes—processes which have been used for many years.
I find the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories disturbing reading. I am left with the impression that too much blame is attached to the worker and not enough to the indifferent employer and those who fail to supervise adequately the management of these small factories and works. It seems that despite the deteriorating situation—and my noble friend has given the House the figures—there is a reluctance to establish joint safety committees. I would ask my noble friend why this cannot be a statutory obligation forthwith, in view of the figures which he has been given. It appears that the position will deteriorate still further, and it seems surprising that there should be any further delay in setting up these committees.
As the victim of an accident or an industrial disease is always the employee, it would seem to me that he has every reason to protect himself, provided there is co-operation forthcoming from the management. If some workers show apathy, as has been suggested in the Report, it is because they have not been kept fully informed of some of the occupational hazards. For instance, for years the miners were kept in ignorance of the lethal properties of coal dust. And it came as a surprise to me to read in the Report on Industrial Health that the symptoms of byssinosis, the dust disease of cotton and flax workers, are described as being fairly well known even by the workers themselves. If it has
518
taken so many years to warn the workers of the serious nature of this disease, then decades must pass before they are warned of the risks run by those contracting chronic interstitial fibrosis, a lung condition which has not yet had a confirmed ætiology. I find it difficult to understand why this knowledge is withheld. There are nurses, medical officers, officials of all kinds in this particular field, and yet still this amazing ignorance exists among the workers of the hazards of their occupations. I would agree that there are no doubt many workers who adopt the attitude of "I'm all right, Jack", but that is no excuse for failing to offer the maximum protection to the others.
The curious thing about this appalling problem is that public interest is not very great. It seems to me that public interest in a death rate varies according to the circumstances. While a disaster in the pits makes headlines, the fact that last year there were 293,717 industrial accidents, of which 627 were fatal, has little news value. These accidents apparently occurred in familiar surroundings—in a factory, in a works, or in a shop with a bacon machine. This has no news value. Furthermore, it was stated in the Report that at least 30 per cent. of reportable accidents have not been reported to the Inspectorate.
It seems, from reading the Report, that the large firms have improved safety training and it is the small firms which show a high accident rate; and apparently the accidents often occur on machines where the principles of guarding are well-known and where guards are known to be effective. This fact evokes this comment in the Report:
"The continuance of disabling accidents on these machines is something of which the occupiers of factories using them should be ashamed."
If we are to rely upon the bad employer's experiencing a sense of shame or even remorse in order to prevent accidents, then we can dispense with legislation and an expensive Inspectorate. I say that those who should be filled with shame are those who have allowed the callous employer to evade the law and, through sheer indifference, fail to protect the life and limbs of his workpeople.
This is a very big subject, and these Reports are fairly concentrated. The

519
law in this field has, of course, developed over the years and there have been exhaustive reports on many aspects of it—on the accident rate, on industrial diseases and so on—and committee after committee has been set up to examine the question. I take it that when in another place or in this House somebody stands up, as my noble friend has to-night, and initiates a debate, then perhaps, in order to quieten him or the labour world, or to quieten Members of Parliament in another place who represent industrial constituents, somebody says, "We will set up another committee". The committee sits for two or three years and then makes another report. It would be interesting to know how many of these reports have been acted upon and how many have been pigeon-holed.
In this debate to-night I want to raise two matters. Time is limited, and I want to raise these matters with my noble friend who is to answer for the Government. I do not expect him to be able to answer off the cuff, but I should be quite happy if he would promise to send me a detailed answer by letter. I should like to know what action has been taken regarding the paper written by Dr. Patricia Lees on The Vulnerability to Trauma of Women in relation to Periodic Stress, written for the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. Many of these women workers are married women who go into industry for the first time, without any knowledge of the hazards. May I know whether women workers are given talks in groups by a nurse or medical officer, which includes this information? As this information covered 10,000 women, it would seem to be a waste of time and money and effort if the findings were not acted upon.
There is another matter which I want to talk about. Of all the horrible disabilities from which workers in our industrial areas suffer, I have picked just one because it struck me directly I went to an industrial constituency. I represented an industrial constituency after representing a London constituency where I found very few industrial diseases. I went up North to an industrial constituency, and immediately the impact of the condition of some of the workers was made upon me. I recall that very many men were,
520
as they call it—it is a euphemism for deafness—"hard of hearing". Youngish men and middle-aged men were suffering from occupational deafness. When I raise my voice in industrial areas about some of these matters they say that I am curious. They say, "My father was deaf".
They also suffer from the most appalling bronchitis. I say, "You should not be like this at 40", but they say, "My father had it and my grandfather had it, and they died from it"; and, of course, father and grandfather worked in the same process. They develop a bad chest, they develop occupational deafness, and it is regarded as almost the normal thing, due, perhaps, to the altitude or the latitude or something which is peculiar to a particular town. What is peculiar to it are these appalling, dark, filthy factories in which some of our people work amid noise which deafens and the consequence of which is that so many of these young and middle-aged men are deaf long before old age comes.
On the subject of occupational deafness, I notice that in the Annual Report the Chief Inspector mentions that this condition was recorded in the 17th century as being found among flour millers and coppersmiths in Italy—200 years ago. It is also stated that deafness is "accepted" as part of a noisy job. What complacency! It is "accepted" that these middle-aged men are gradually going deaf. They sometimes find that they are shunned by their families or by their friends because they cannot reply to a conversation. They become isolated. "Accepted" the Inspector says. It is "accepted" because they know perfectly well that if they make a protest they may lose their job; therefore they live in this world of increasing silence and hope that they will not be discharged because their friends and colleagues may think them a little difficult.
The Wilson Committee, which reported in 1963, concluded that the knowledge on occupational deafness was insufficient for legislation to be made. However, the fact is that occupational deafness is at least accepted, and some attempts have been made to provide buildings which reduce the noise transmission. I am afraid that these buildings are still only prototypes. We cannot say that in this,

521
that and the other large industrial town there are factories which have been insulated in a certain way so that the noise does not have a serious effect upon the workers.
The Chief Inspector, who obviously showed sympathy in this matter, said that where it is possible to reduce the noise to safe levels workers should be protected by ear defenders, as he calls them. I should like to know—and this condition has been known since the 17th century—whether the recommendation that these young men who perhaps are not already deaf should be fitted with what are called ear defenders is being carried out, and what proportion of works have failed to include this as part of a preventive medical service.
I am not being difficult to-night. All I am asking my noble friend is whether the recommendations of the Committee which inquired into women workers' conditions have been carried out, and what is being done about occupational deafness. I am not pressing about all the other diseases which are developing, perhaps due to the handling of some toxic substance, because my noble friend can well say to me that research is still going on. But I do ask him about two very simple aspects of this subject.
While successive reports tell us over and over again of the occupational hazards and the investigations which are being made, the significant omission in the two Reports before us is the evidence that the worker is benefiting from the available protection. That is why I am asking the question about ear defenders. The Chief Inspector of Factories sums up the position in a masterly understatement. He writes:
"The overall picture is not one that can be regarded with complacency by employers, employees or the members of the Inspectorate",
and very wisely he has not sought to whitewash his staff. I cannot agree with my noble friend that there is any excuse because there is a shortage of inspectors. This is so terribly serious that it might have been possible over the years to have part-time inspectors. There is no excuse at all.
I say that the individual employee is powerless in this industrial web, and an unscrupulous employer can out-maneouvre an indolent inspector. I also
522
say that in these Reports the crucial information is missing. I should have liked to have an analysis of a group of small factories, with the accident and sickness rate and the nature and frequency of the surveys of the inspector—and I mean a complete survey, with a report on every aspect of the working of a factory. I should like to know what supervision is exercised over the inspector; how often a fresh mind is brought to bear. To allow the same man or woman to go into the same factory time after time is, of course, psychologically wrong. A person becomes accustomed to a place, and perhaps human beings are not always on their toes. I should like to know how often these inspectors are switched from one area to another, so that a calculating employer cannot bring any undue influence to bear.
I hope the House will realise that I am not disparaging these inspectors. But it must be remembered that before an inspector goes to one of these dirty little factories, he has to warn the employer that he is coming. In that short time all kinds of things can be done. It may even be suggested to some of the workers that if they are questioned—
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is my noble friend quite sure that this is done? I always thought that a factory inspector could go to a factory at any moment, without any warning.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No, my Lords. I was told before I came here, by somebody who knows all about industry, that for reasons of courtesy the employer is always informed that an inspector is coming—and I also asked a factory inspector. My noble friend must realise that, after a time, such a friendship grows up between the employer and the inspector that it is a bit like calling on a friend. He has to 'phone and say, "I shall be there this afternoon". What I am saying is that this relationship should not exist, and that there should be much more supervision, in view of the appalling conditions that have been described to us to-day.
I am saying that unless this particular nettle—that is, better supervision of the factory inspectors—is grasped firmly, the Chief Inspector of Factories will find

523
that the position may deteriorate still further. I hope that my noble friend has not raised this matter in vain. It is one of the most serious that could possibly come before Parliament, and for some reason which is difficult to understand there is an apathy among all those who have it in their power to change these conditions.
7.31 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this occasion, but I was so moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crook (with whom I share an interest in ROSPA, as I think I am, with him, a Vice-President), that I should like to add a few words to the debate. I congratulate him very much indeed on an absolutely fascinating account of a terrible problem, as I do also the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, on her admirable speech. All that has been said is, I think, most important, and I hope it will reach the ears both of employers and of employees, because what I think one must also say—and I know this to be true—is that quite often it is difficult to get employees to use the safety measures which have been installed.
I do not employ many people, but I do employ a certain number in agriculture; and, as your Lordships may know, there has been a great slackness in getting safety measures introduced in agriculture. I do not know why, but it is one of the last industries to have been dealt with from a safety point of view. Now, every employer has strict instructions about what he has to do, and most farmers—certainly the ones I know—have done it. But you still cannot prevent employees from doing things which they are not allowed to do. You may put up a huge notice saying what is allowed and what is not, but you cannot watch them every single moment of the day, and sometimes accidents happen which are caused simply by the employee's not being prepared to use the safety measures—the safety guards, and so on—which have been provided. That is because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has said, these measures sometimes slow down the process, and the men are all desparately anxious to get on with the job. I do not say that
524
that is the main reason, or is anything like the main reason, for the accidents which have been described, because it is not. I remember that during the war I served for a long time on a Ministry of Labour committee which was dealing with the employment of women in munition factories. Those Government factories were all supplied with every conceivable protection, but it was difficult to get the women to use them. It was not the fault of the employer; it was the fault of the employee.
However, those are only comments which I make because I think it is not fair to say that it is all the fault of the employers. It certainly is the fault of the employers that a factory is bad—and the conditions which the noble Baroness has described are, of course, shocking, and nobody would want to see them perpetuated. But there is also the question that, having provided every safety measure, still the people do not use them, and then there is an accident. I have seen it happen, so I am speaking about something of which I have had actual experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, mentioned the question of safety in the home. That is not the subject of our debate to-night, but it is an extremely important matter. I know from my position on the Consumer Council that a very great deal of information comes to us about dangers from various things—unguarded fires, inflammable materials, and so on. One is most anxious to tackle all that in every possible way, to try to make life safer in the home as well as in the factory. I hope that the debate tonight, short as it is, and though at such a late hour, will get wide publicity, and that the Government will try to support in every way possible measures making for greater protection.
I have recently visited some factories in the textile industry in the Midlands where, in the past, the noise to which the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referred must have been ghastly. In fact, however, the new looms which I was shown—I think they were Swiss, although I am not quite sure—whilenot silent, were so much less noisy than the old ones that it gave one great encouragement. The noble Lord who is going to reply will no doubt recollect the terrible noise in the jute factories in Dundee. I

525
remember being taken there on one occasion. That is really a nightmare. There again, although I speak without the knowledge of the noble Lord, a great deal of that ancient machinery is probably now obsolete, and I hope that noise of that kind, which led to terrifying deafness, is now a thing of the past.
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Crook. I think he has done an excellent service in bringing this subject forward at this moment; and anything that I can do to help, in my capacity as chairman of the Consumer Council, in my capacity as a supporter of ROSPA, as an employer of a very small number of people or in any other way, I shall be only too happy to do, because this is a vitally important matter. I hope that the Government will do all they can to answer the points raised in the brilliant analysis of the problem which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill.
7.38 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Summerskill has referred to deafness and to the need for ear-defenders or some other means of preventing deafness. It is an extraordinary thing, but I do not believe that deafness has ever been classified as an occupational disease, and I do not think there has ever been a Common Law action claiming damages for deafness as a disability created by work. Yet, of course, it is undoubtedly created, although it is a very slow business—and this is one of the difficulties in getting the workers to take protective action.
My noble friend mentioned protectors. These are of two kinds. There are either the things which you can wear inside your ears, which are very uncomfortable, or there are ear-muffs, which you can wear outside your ears but which are very hot—and both protectors are very unpopular for those reasons. In fact, an internal protector may irritate the ear channel and may cause a rash there; so probably a better thing is a piece of cotton wool. But far and away the best thing is to suppress the noise at source. This is the only proper answer, and often it can be done very easily if only managements will think about noise when it comes to re-equipping their fac
526
tory—for example, replacing metal parts which steer mass-produced components into troughs or boxes with wooden parts, so that the impact noise of metal on metal is reduced. That is a perfectly straightforward thing to do.
But at the moment there are no means by which the amount of noise produced in a factory can be measured. There is no organisation whose job it is to measure such noise. It ought to be the job of an industrial hygiene service. That, at the moment, is non-existent, and I must honestly say that we have had very little encouragement from the Ministry of Labour in the establishment of an industrial hygiene service. I wish most strongly that we could see established in the course of the next year or so a proper set of industrial hygiene laboratories which are available freely to industry for the measurement of loud and dangerous noises, among many other dangerous things in such an environment.
My noble friend Lord Crook has done a very useful service indeed in raising this subject. Personally, I agree with every word he has said, although I think we all realise that when he gave us a figure for accidents it was a gross underestimate. He could give us only the notified industrial accidents received by the Ministry of Labour and, as he said, the Ministry of Social Security figures for occupational injuries are higher. Even then they do not really approach the true figures, because these are only for accidents which cause disability lasting for three or more days; that is to say, absence from work for three or more days. In the case of a properly-treated industrial accident, even if a comparatively severe one, like a fracture of a toe or finger, the person should be back at work within twenty-four hours, or even straight away if it were a clean injury, properly sewn up, properly supervised. The very best thing for them is not to go absent. One sees this happen so frequently with back injuries. If a fellow injures his back at work, he may be off work for six to eight weeks or more; but if it is possible for him to have physiotherapy each day at work, and to continue at work, he will get better in two or three weeks.
This is a measure of what we could do. My noble friend stressed the importance of accident committees, and asked what more could be done to stimulate

527
their formation. So far as prevention of accidents is concerned, the only thing to do is to keep on nagging continually. One must go on and on. A high proportion of accidents occur to young people, in their first two or three years at work, and more particularly in their first six months at work, when they have not really learned how to use their machines or how to use their guarding apparatus. As my noble friend Lord Crook said, things will be better with the coming of proper industrial training under the Industrial Training Act.
But there is something else we can do. It is to get at the "kids" at school, before they leave, particularly those who are in the secondary modern or technical streams, and give them talks about accidents in school when industry is still something that they do not know a great deal about, or at least something they do not think they know everything about. Once they start on a lathe, they think they know it all. You can read amazing stories in this Report. For example, there was the little boy who, asked to collect some potassium cyanide, got the crystals in a plastic bucket and noticed that they started fizzing. Little did he realise that it contained hydrochloric acid. He took it round to the foreman, who said something about cleaning it out. He went back and threw in some more potassium cynanide; and if it had not been that the foreman heard him groan as he passed out, it might have had a very serious effect. But this was just pure ignorance. Certainly, the time when we can do most about accident education is before the boys and girls actually start in industry. I think this is something that we have neglected rather a lot. I hope we shall give this education in schools, and I hope we shall do it in the technical colleges.
The second field where I feel most passionately that we are not doing what we ought is in the field of early treatment; that is, in the development of treatment services. It was really a terrible story my noble friend related when he told us what it was costing. Yet we could deal with most of this for a tenth, a twentieth or even a fiftieth of the cost. Time and time again we beg that we should be allowed to develop, or be given the means to start, an industrial health service for the small factories.
528
My noble friend stressed the small factories, as did the noble Lady. There is no doubt at all that there cannot be safety officers in the small factories. In every good, large factory, there are safety officers who do a good job. Whenever an accident occurs he or she investigates why it happened and finds out what can be done to prevent its happening again. In the very large number of small factories there is nobody to do this work. There cannot be, in terms of the numbers. But if one can develop small industrial health services on a local basis, then they can do for the small employer and for the employees in smaller factories what the big employer does for himself. Once these things are going they can pay for themselves, or industry will pay for the total cost of them. But they need a bit of help to start. We have been begging Conservative Governments, and now we are begging a Labour Government, to give some help to the creation of these industrial health services for the smaller factories.
Until now every one of these services has been created through the generosity of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust or the Nuffield Foundation. Once they get going they are self supporting. The Dundee Industrial Health Service, the Rochdale Industrial Health Service, the West Bromwich and Smethwick Health Services, the Slough and Central Middlesex Health Service, and my own at Harlow all started in this way. All have managed to make good, yet we cannot persuade the Government to set aside the small amount of money needed to start more. Unless you have a pump-priming grant to get things going, nothing happens.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill mentioned committees which report, after which nothing happens. We have had a Committee on the Appointed Factory Doctors' Service. I hoped (and still hope) that we may get legislation from this Committee in the course of the next twelve months. I trust I am not hoping in vain. I hope very much that in such legislation there may be provision to enable a very small part of the money which is now set aside in the event of an enormous increase in the claims for industrial injuries—I forget the amount; I think it is £300 million or more which is salted away in the Industrial Injuries

529
Fund—to be spent in preventing industrial injuries. It would seem commonsense. Yet it is a commonsense that we have so far failed to get any Government to agree about.
I hope very much that the Government will take this question of industrial safety, of the prevention of industrial accidents and injuries and of illness, of getting Committees set up and of early treatment, very much more seriously than they have in the past. I do not want to see them spending the few thousand pounds for which my noble friend Lord Crook modestly asked for his Committee; I want to see them spending about £4 million to £5 million a year towards preventing the wastage of £300 million a year. It seems to me to be a very simple and sensible investment. If only we could get this done, it would pay for itself not one, twice or thrice, but thirty or forty times over. Yet I fear we shall have to go on asking for a little longer, but I hope not for very much longer, to see this happen.
7.50 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, my first duty and pleasure is to express my very sincere appreciation to my noble friend Lord Crook for having initiated this debate and for the very well-informed way in which he stated the point of view that he felt impelled to bring before the House. I should like to say right at the outset that, in speaking last in this debate, I do not regard my task to be to attempt to rebut matters which have been put forward by noble Lords; because so many of them, in fact, are incapable of being given a rebuttal. So many of the things which have been said are statements of fact, statements based on the statistics in the Reports to which my noble friend, Lord Crook has drawn attention. And if, in the first instance, I draw attention to certain aspects of the figures quoted from the Reports, it is not because I wish to fall into the trap which my noble friend Baroness Summerskill suspects that the Chief Inspector has fallen into, of being unduly complacent, but just because I wish to make a modest beginning of an examination of the figures.
My noble friend Lord Crook referred to the increase in reported accidents, and
530
the last complete figure was the one for 1965, of 293,000. The figures for the first nine months of this year indicate that the present year's complete figures will be around the same as, those for 1965, or perhaps very slightly more. If the figures are taken completely at their face value, it indicates a deterioration in the position which cannot possibly be gainsaid; and when one compares the figures, as my noble friend did, with those for as recently as 1962, it seems to indicate an appalling deterioration.
Nevertheless, I must say that the figures cannot be taken quite at their face value (my noble friend indicated that he expected me to say something of this kind), not merely because of the fact that there is improved reporting but for a quite different reason, which was referred to in the Chief Inspector's Reports. It is that changes in social circumstances have taken place and one of the bases for reporting accidents, the three-days absence from work, is now related to circumstances which are perhaps not the same as they were even a few years ago.
Similarly, with the inauguration of the Health Service people suggested that there appeared to be a very sudden increase in illness among women and children because of the calls then made on doctors. But this was not the case; it was because treatment could be obtained which had not been available before, and because of the changed conditions in relation to sick pay schemes, industrial injuries benefits and so on. People who had previously continued at work, or not stayed away from work after injury, did not do so for the very admirable reason suggested by my noble friend Lord Taylor, that continuing at work was perhaps the best way of getting well, but because they could not afford to be off work. That situation has altered, and to a certain extent it has influenced these figures.
But, having said that, I must also make it clear that I do not suggest for one moment that it in any way diminishes the seriousness of these figures. As stated by my noble friend Lord Taylor, the figures of accidents which are reported do not by any means reveal the whole story. So the apparent slight diminution of the increase is probably much more than cancelled out by the unknown and unreported accidents.

531
My Lords, my greatest regret in relation to this debate is that it should be taking place at an hour of the night when, by past experience, your Lordships can expect to get very little reported in the Press. The circumstances of time are against us. But so much has been said in this debate which is very much worth hearing, which is very much worth being brought to the notice of both employers and employees, that I wish the Press could find some way of using some of this material. Perhaps it might be the subject of articles which could go into weekly newspapers; or it might appear in magazine sections from time to time when the fact that it was actually said at this time on a particular night would bear no relation to its importance. The important thing is that the people concerned should get to know about some of these things.
I agree very much with what has been said by a number of people including the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who followed my noble friend, Lady Summerskill, who pointed out that not all the blame could be laid at the door of the employers—and that is true. At the same time, we have to admit that the old argument, that everything that could be done for the safety of workers was done, and that accidents happened because workers neglected the use of these safeguards, is no longer true. I recall a slogan used by the Royal Society a year or two ago which I remember hearing at a conference that I attended in Scotland. It was: "Accidents don't happen—they are caused". I have never forgotten those words. I believe that their acceptance by everyone concerned could do a great deal to diminish the number of accidents. If everyone could get that firmly in his mind it would be the best way to reduce the accident figures. Accidents are caused by bad employers. They are caused by careless employees. They are caused by people, anxious to have more money—whether in the shape of profits or in wage packets—taking short cuts, removing safety devices and so on. These things are all part of the trouble.
Having said all that, however, I should also say that much has been done by these joint safety committees. In July of last year my honourable friend, the
532
then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, said, in reply to a Question in another place that the. Minister still wished to rely on these committees being set up by voluntary effort. From that point of view I am not to-night going to be able to satisfy my honourable friend Lady Summerskill, who desires that they should be set up as a statutory process. The Minister believes, and I think that most people in industry believe, that if the committees can be set up on a very much wider basis than at present as voluntary machinery, they will be much more valuable than something which is imposed. We have a fear (we may be wrong) that committees imposed on workers against their will, and on establishments against their will, might well receive the same treatment as the devices which workers do not wish to use because they impede the possibility of increasing earnings. But a committee which is set up voluntarily within the factory starts off with a degree of good will which is in itself a good beginning to the prevention of accidents inside the factory.
My Lords, if I were to pretend that I knew all about this subject, you would know that it was not true. After all, I have not previously had anything to do with the Ministry of Labour debates in your Lordships' House. But I would say that it is my suspicion that if we could have a comparison between the accident rates in factories which have voluntary safety committees and in those which do not, the factories where there are safety committees would come out very much better every time. For that reason, we prefer to rely for a little time longer on the efforts which are being made, and which I hope will be intensified, as a result of this debate, to get more of these committees going. A very great deal more has to be done before the position could be accepted as being even reasonable, because as yet there is only a minority of these committees in existence. But, as was stated last July, if we cannot see evidence within a reasonably short space of time of an expansion in the voluntary system, then the Minister has not by any means ruled out the possibility that compulsion will have to be applied. But we shall be doing it from the point of view that the application of compulsion is in itself an admission of failure, which would not be the best way to go ahead.

533
It is not because of ignorance of the subject that I do not propose to reply to the other points which have been made to-night—although I must admit that I have an almost perfect excuse under that heading—hut because the value of this debate is that my right honourable colleague will study what has been said here with the greatest interest. Without exception, noble Lords who have taken part have had something to say which is worth while. I have only one rebuttal to make, and that is to the point questioned by my noble friend Lord Taylor, when my noble friend Lady Summerskill said that inspectors always gave notice before they called on an establishment. She asked that they should be switched round from time to time so that they should not get on too friendly terms with employers and thereby be subject to undue influence. There is no obligation on an inspector to notify anyone of his intention of calling. It may be done in some cases. Personally I can see no reason why it should be done at any time.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I just say that my authority was one of the best—my noble friend Lord Collison, who is a member of the T.U.C.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I think that it is sometimes done with very small factories to make sure that the boss is in—that is the practical reason.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I know from recent experience that it is not always a good thing to quote personal experience in this House, but it is not long ago since I was concerned with running a small company. We occasionally had visits from factory inspectors, and notwithstanding the fact that I was as much an absentee employer as any likely to be found in the country, I never had any intimation from the factory inspector of his intention to call. So, even in cases of small establishments, notice is not given as a matter of right in order to ensure that the employer or person responsible is in when the inspector calls.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My noble friend must have been suspect.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, that would not surprise me in the least. I
534
think that I have been suspect all my days. But the fact is that there is no obligation to notify. Again (and I think that this will please my noble friend) inspectors are switched frequently, not in order to avoid their coming under the undue influence of employers—because, frankly, I think that the chances of that are not great—but in order to prevent them, because they are always going to the same places, from overlooking or ignoring, through familiarity, something which a man coming in anew would find out.
My noble friend Lord Crook referred to the number of inspectors employed, and to the fact that the establishment was not filled. I have some small encouragement for him. The last figure of the establishment which he had was 517. That has been increased to 533, although, what is of much more interest to him, the actual number in establishment is 481. My noble friend, and also I think my noble friend Lady Summerskill, asked why there could not be part-time inspectors. A special scheme for the appointment of assistant inspectors has recently been started and has got off to a fairly satisfactory, though small, beginning. These assistant inspectors are recruited from inside the Ministry of Labour's staff, and eleven have so far been trained and taken up appointments. This scheme is being examined so that there can be an expansion of this service, if possible, but the Ministry itself suffers from shortages of certain trained people, and to a certain extent shifting them over to assistant inspectors is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I hope that I have said sufficient to indicate to all noble Lords who have taken part that I expect my right honourable friend to treat this debate in the way I am treating it to-night, as something which has been very worth while. I hope that the results that will flow from it will come from what is learned outside by industry as well as from what is learned inside the Ministry. On the two points which my noble friend Lady Summer-skill asked me, she anticipated correctly that I should not be able to give answers off the cuff. I regret that. I am happy, however, that her second anticipation, that I would write to her on these questions, is more capable of being carried out; and that I sincerely undertake to do. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Crook for what he has said and all other noble Lords who have taken part.

  ENVELOPE SIZES AND POSTAL SURCHARGE
  ENVELOPE SIZES AND POSTAL SURCHARGE