Sitting of 10 April 1968

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

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Education Act, 1968.

2. Consular Relations Act, 1968.

3. Brighton Marina Act, 1968.

4. Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Act, 1968.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Farmers (Budget Increases)
    Mr. Nobleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the increased cost to Scottish farmers from the increases in petrol and vehicle licence duties imposed in the Budget.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answers my right hon. Friend gave on 25th March to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith).—[Vol. 761, c. 224.]
    Mr. Noble: In view of the considerable increases which will have to be met by Scottish farmers in this way and other ways as a result of the Budget, has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the farming community will be able to carry these costs until next year, which will be the first chance it will have of recuperation under the Price Review? Will he also consider whether any further action is needed by the Government if the
    1340
    farming community is to fulfil its functions?
    Mr. Buchan: There is no reason to believe that the farming community will be unable to fulfil its functions. All these matters will be considered in the usual way at the annual Price Review next year.
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the increase of costs in the agricultural industry as a result of the Budget measures.
    Mr. Buchan: I estimate that in a full year the increase in costs to farmers in Scotland as a result of the Budget measures will amount to about £700,000.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that these costs are mostly extra transport costs, which will affect the remote areas to a greater extent? Will the hon. Gentleman try to increase the 100-mile limit in the Transport Bill to at least 200 miles?
    Mr. Buchan: I think that that is a matter which should properly be directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I should not like to bring this into the field of agriculture, but the total figure is as I gave it, and will be part of the consideration at the Annual Price Review.
    Mr. MacArthur: Does the hon. Gentleman's estimate allow for the 50 per cent. increase in S.E.T. which farmers will have to carry for three months as an enforced interest-free loan to the Government?
    Mr. Buchan: I know the point which the hon. Gentleman is making. This is the overall estimate of the position.
    Mr. MacArthur: Including S.E.T.?

    Windblow Action Group (Report)
    Mr. Nobleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is now taking on the report from the Windblow Action Group about storm damage to Scottish forests.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I would refer the right hon. Member to the statement I made on 4th April, 1968. Further details have since been announced by the Forestry Commission.—[Vol. 762, c. 619–23.]
    Mr. Noble: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I have not myself yet been able to see what the Forestry Commission has said. Will he consider whether the subsidy is given for enough classes of timber so that arrangements for selling it can be adequate? Will he reconsider the question of investment grants to the timber industries? At a time when people are trying to make these industries more efficient, it seems a pity to give such grants only to the Forestry Commission, since this will not give the industries the incentives they should have.
    Mr. Ross: The question of investment grants for forestry is not new. Nor is it related purely to the emergency. It would be wrong to relate them to one part of the industry. I will look at the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman and see whether it is covered.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Why did it take three months to produce inadequate relief for a vital import-saving industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has done does little to help out the industry or the nation in the short term and in the long term?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his assumption that this assistance is inadequate. The provision we are making should meet the need fully. I also want to put right a suggestion that in 1953 much shorter time was taken over this matter. In fact, about the same amount of time was taken. In 1968, however, we did not have such a concentration of windblow as we had in 1953. It was more scattered and the complications of investigation were such that time was inevitably taken up.

    Education (Sutherland)
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received for the reorganisation of education in Sutherland upon comprehensive lines from the Sutherland County Council; and what reply he has sent.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): Sutherland Education Authority proposed that there should be one six-year comprehensive school and three four-year junior high schools in the county, the former at Golspie and the latter at Dornoch, Lairg and Farr. My right hon. Friend has
    1342
    approved these proposals, subject to further consideration of the timing and other details of their implementation.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that proposals and counterproposals have been made over the last three years for the reorganisation of education in Sutherland and that there is concern in the county over the delay in reaching a final conclusion in this matter? Is he also aware that there is further concern, arising out of the recently announced Government cuts, that the necessary finance will not be available to bring this difficult situation to a speedy resolution?
    Mr. Millan: I do not wish to see a prolonged period of uncertainty. If there has been delay, the responsibility does not rest on me. I do not think the point raised by my hon. Friend will affect the proposals I have just described.

    One-Teacher Schools
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy with regard to one-teacher schools in the rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Millan: Any proposal of an education authority for the closure of a school requires my right hon. Friend's approval, and he considers each case on its merits. In general, children are believed to gain social and educational advantages from being taught in a larger school community and in more homogeneous age groups than obtain in one-teacher schools, but other factors such as the condition of existing buildings, the availabilty of teachers, the distances which children would have to travel and the wishes of parents are also taken into account.
    Mr. Maclennan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that full reply, and recognising the difficulties in sparsely populated areas of Scotland, may I ask him to confirm that teachers in a number of one-teacher schools, throughout the Highlands in particular, provide very adequate facilities and do an excellent job of work?
    Mr. Millan: I have pleasure in confirming that. Any proposals for a closure come to us from an education authority

    1343
    and are not initiated by us. They are considered on their merits.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the Minister also confirm that it is often an extremely important part of the whole education of the child that, as far as possible, he should be educated in the community in which he is brought up?
    Mr. Millan: That is certainly another very important consideration, which we keep in mind.

    Hospitals (Fire Prevention)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that some form of fire prevention is available in all hospitals under his control, especially mental and geriatric hospitals and what periodic steps are taken to ensure their maintenance and efficiency.
    Mr. Millan: Yes, Sir. All hospitals must maintain adequate safeguards against fire and review them at least twice a year. Their attention has been directed specially to the fire safety problems of mental hospitals, and they have been asked to take account of the difficulties of moving some categories of patients, such as old people, to different levels in the event of an emergency. Detailed arrangements for individual hospitals are the responsibility of the board of management which consult as necessary with the area firemaster.
    Mr. Hannan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the terrible tragedy at Sheldon Hospital recently? Arising from this, would he not agree that this incident, together with others, has pointed to the great urgency for the receipt of the Holroyd Report, dealing with fire prevention?
    Mr. Millan: Following the tragedy at Sheldon, my Department drew the attention of regional hospital boards to this, asking them to look at their current fire arrangements. We are also carrying out a review of our current instructions on fire precautions.

    Conveyancing (Halliday Committee's Proposals)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to give effect to the proposals of the Halliday Committee on Conveyancing.
    Mr. Ross: The Report's recommendations are still being considered. Its more far-reaching proposals are being studied as part of the examination which I announced last July, of the possibility of major reform of the Scottish system of land tenure. I hope to be in a position to say something further about these matters later this Session.

    Old People (Hospital Admissions)
    Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in addition to providing more geriatric beds in Scotland, he will introduce an emergency scheme to allow certain old people, who suffer sudden and severe illness, to be admitted to hospital as soon as possible.
    Mr. Millan: It is already well understood by hospital authorities that acutely ill patients should be admitted to hospital regardless of age.
    Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that this does not happen in all cases? Does he appreciate that many local practitioners would approve of such a scheme suggested in my Question? Is he also aware that many geriatricians in the County of Fife would support a scheme if more hospital beds were provided?
    Mr. Millan: These difficulties should not arise, and if they do in particular circumstances I am always very glad to look at them.

    Glasgow (Storm Damage)
    Mr. Tom McMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland owing to the further storm damage in Glasgow if he will now give special aid to speed permanent repairs.
    Mr. Ross: I have at present nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 4th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 619–23.]
    Mr. McMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when wind and rain hits the City of Glasgow it becomes a City of fear and misery for many thousands of people? Will he now give realistic Government incentives to attract skilled workers from anywhere in the United Kingdom, so that an onslaught can be made, each weekend, to rid the people of this human misery?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all that we can to attract labour from all parts of the country to Glasgow. One of the difficulties is that whereas normally we would get the labour from surrounding areas, these areas have also been hit. At present they need every man. Once again I give the assurance that we are not lax in this matter.
    Mr. Noble: Does the Secretary of State not remember that when he made his statement he told us that the Minister of State was considering an urgent programme with Glasgow Corporation, and that he would meet members of the Corporation the following day? As a result of that, has he anything more to tell us?
    Mr. Ross: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that not only did I see my hon. Friend, and had telephone communication with him, but I saw the Lord Provost of Glasgow on the next day, the Friday. My hon. Friend will be seeing not only officials of Glasgow Corporation but officials of all the authorities tomorrow. I have arranged a series of meetings to ensure not only that progress goes on, but that we are fully informed of what is happening.
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the approximate number of houses in Glasgow which suffered damage in the recent hurricane of a nature likely to endanger life and limb through hazards such as collapsing chimney heads and how many of these were rent restricted houses.
    Mr. Ross: The roofs of some 10,000 tenements were damaged, 5,000 of them seriously, but I cannot say how much of this damage endangered life and limb. All the tenanted houses would be either controlled or regulated under the Rent Acts.
    Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State try to find this out, because it is an important matter? Will he consider making a grant where the condition of properties due to restrictions under the Rent Act, made full insurance impossible? Will he consider introducing a grant to reimburse those where the cost of repair is inflated by the extent of the damage throughout the whole City of
    1346
    Glasgow because it was impossible to get competitive tenders?
    Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman has gone very wide of his original Question. Our first concern was to ensure that dangerous buildings were dealt with at once, and this was done.
    Concerning the point about the Rent Acts, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the mini-hurricane or great storm did not select rent restricted properties alone, but affected all kinds of properties.

    Dundee Corporation Shops (Rent Increases)
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he decided that increases of up to 400 per cent. in shops owned by the Dundee Corporation should not be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Having considered all the circumstances my right hon. Friend did not consider that a reference was called for.
    Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was informed in a Written Answer from his Department that it was not appropriate to refer to the Prices and Incomes Board increases ranging from 100 per cent. to 400 per cent.? If these increases are not appropriate, would he tell us what increases are?
    Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend is not being fair to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State who on 19th February pointed out that the shops concerned had not had their rents reviewed for 10 years, and that, after consultation with the appropriate Departments, we did not think in this case that the National Board for Prices and Incomes should consider the increases.
    Dr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware that increases of this nature cause tremendous hardship to some of these shopkeepers? If rents have not been increased for a large number of years that is not the fault of the shopkeeper. Would he not agree that the increases should be phased over a longer period of time?
    Dr. Mabon: In general that is perfectly fair as a comment. One has to know the precise cases and circumstances.

    1347
    I am glad to tell the House that the Corporation arranged for 40 of the tenants to talk the matter over with the City Assessor. As a result, 30 rents were reduced from the recommended figure and 10 cases are pending.
    Mr. Noble: Will the Minister tell us, bearing in mind the increase in the shop rents to this level, whether he would refer any similar increase in house rents to the Prices and Incomes Board?
    Dr. Mabon: The right hon. Gentleman will know that four such proposals affecting local authority housing in Scotland have been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board by the Government.

    East of Scotland Water Boards(Appointments)
    Mr. Doigasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the manner in which the officials of the East of Scotland Water Board were appointed; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: According to my information the Board followed the proper procedures in making these appointments.
    Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this appointment meeting the chairman insisted on a ballot vote, and while the ballot papers were being marked he proceeded to talk in favour of one of the applicants? Is he further aware that after the results of the first vote were declared—it was not a decisive vote being eleven, nine, one, and one—there was then a motion made, and accepted by the large majority of fifteen to seven, that the chairman ought not to use his casting vote in the event of a tie? In spite of this he insisted on using his casting vote.
    Dr. Mabon: I know that this is not the happiest story in the many discussions that have taken place on water amalgamations. The Board may have taken such a vote but it had no power in statute to do so. The Water (Scotland) Act, 1967, specifically provides that in the event of an equality of votes the chairman shall have a casting vote. I have looked into this matter carefully with my right hon. Friend and my noble Friend, and in the circumstances we believe that the procedures have been per
    1348
    fectly proper, however unhappy some members of the Board may have been about them.

    Forestry Industry (Budget Increases)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the extra costs for the forestry industry in Scotland of the proposed additional licence charges on road vehicles and the increase in fuel duty.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I cannot give a reliable figure.
    Mr. Campbell: There has been plenty of time since the Budget. Why has the Secretary of State not worked out the important effects on this vital Scottish industry?
    Dr. Mabon: We have held many detailed conversations with the industry and the Forestry Commission, not just as a consequence of the Budget, but as a consequence of the hurricane that hit us. The Commission considered that the extra costs for a normal year would be of the order of £50,000. That is the Commission's view. I should not like to put it as being any more than that.
    Mr. Brewis: Is this not yet another reason why the South-West of Scotland should be included in the transport subsidy given by the Forestry Commission, as its costs must have gone up so much?
    Dr. Mabon: That is entirely another matter. If the hon. Gentleman would like to table it as a separate question, I should be happy to answer it.

    Local Authorities (Budget Increases)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the extra costs to local authorities in Scotland of the proposed additional licence charges on road vehicles and the increase in fuel duty.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: It is not practicable to make an estimate at this stage.
    Mr. Campbell: Does not the Minister of State agree that extra transport costs are felt more acutely in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain? Will the Secretary of State be a member of the new inner Cabinet, where he may be able to press this point?
    Mr. Ross: Oh dear, oh dear.
    Dr. Mabon: In other circumstances relative to part of the Bill we have been discussing, the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question may have been "Yes". But now the answer is "No". On the second part, my right hon. Friend has distinguished himself by the way in which he has fought for Scotland in all circumstances.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that these changes are damaging not only to local authorities but to all the industries in North-East Scotland which use road transport for the purposes of their business? Would he take steps to do something about the matter?
    Dr. Mabon: I do not wish to anticipate the debates on the Finance Bill. But these are fundamentally British taxes—they are not specifically Scottish taxes—and I am sure that they are much more acceptable than they would be if distance were so involved.
    Mr. Noble: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that they are totally unacceptable in Scotland? This is the second or third time that this form of tax has added increased burdens to all costs in Scotland.
    Dr. Mabon: All taxes add burdens, all taxes are unpopular. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues imposed similar taxes, although—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should pursue the matter with the appropriate Minister if he thinks that I am wrong. My recollection of the Opposition's days in office is that they did the same. Taxes have to be raised in present circumstances and these seem appropriate ways of doing it.

    Glasgow (New Roads)
    Mr. Buchananasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has made of the costs in respect of the City of Glasgow of new road construction on the surface compared with the costs of tunnelling of roads.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend made no detailed studies, because unfavourable underground conditions in
    1350
    Glasgow are known to make tunnelling costs prohibitive.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend does not set these studies in motion, because it is obvious that the solution to our traffic problems does not lie on the surface. When one takes into consideration the replacement of industries, commercial undertakings, houses, and the loss of rateable value to the city, the cost of tunnelling must bear very closely to that of surface roads. I ask my hon. Friend to have another look at this matter.
    Dr. Mabon: In the first instance, this is a matter for the Corporation, and we are quite satisfied that the Glasgow Corporation, with its consulting engineers, made a very thorough initial investigation of Glasgow's traffic problems and of the matter raised in the Question when the system of major surface routes which we are building was planned. My hon. Friend will know that London, where excavation is easier because of the London clay, has an advantage over Glasgow, where the strata stretches from running sand to the hardest rock. I may add that the running sand is in Pollok, Cathcart and Hillhead.

    Aluminium Smelting Plant
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the siting of an aluminium smelting plant in Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9th April to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol 762, c. 231.]
    Mr. Monro: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have been getting this type of reply for about six months? Without prejudicing the negotiations, cannot he be a little more forthcoming and tell us what is happening?
    Mr. Ross: When the Government have confidential conversations with industries on projects as important as these, one cannot be forthcoming without breaking confidence.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that neither

    1351
    the Norwegians or any of our E.F.T.A. partners will be allowed to exercise a veto over these very imaginative proposals? Secondly, can he give an assurance that one of these smelters will be in Scotland?
    Mr. Ross: It is very, very easy to give facile answers, but we had better contain ourselves with patience. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully aware of the interests of Invergordon and the whole of the Highland area, and they are all being taken into account. I trust that they will not be disappointed with the outcome.
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great anxiety in Ross and Cromarty over the long delay in coming to a decision, especially since Press statements seemed to indicate that there would be a decision way back in November? Would he do his utmost to ensure that a Government statement is made in the near future?
    Mr. Ross: I appreciate that there may be anxiety. I hope and trust that there is confidence in the area which the hon. Gentleman represents, but he probably more than anyone else will appreciate from the discussion which he has had with me the complexity and implications of this matter, not just for Scotland, but for Britain as a whole and the consideration being given to the interests of people outside with whom we have certain links. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no unnecessary delay.

    Police (Search Powers)
    Mr. Munroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation to provide the police with powers to search for offensive weapons.
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will complete his consideration of the proposal that the police powers of search should be extended.
    Mr. Buchan: I am aware of the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House and I can assure them that my right hon. Friend will reach his conclusions on the proposal as quickly as is consistent with giving all aspects of the question full and proper consideration.
    1352
    Until my right hon. Friend has reached a decision the question of legislation does not arise.
    Mr. Munro: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Scotland have indicated for a long time that they want action? Why is he incapable of making a simple decision to introduce legislation to deal with offensive weapons?
    Mr. Buchan: The question is whether we make the right decision. I am aware that this proposal has been erected as a kind of symbol. It is not necessarily the best method. We have to examine the matter. If I could get another 50 or 100 police in Glasgow, that would be a more effective extension of police powers.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has been swithering and dithering about this problem for some months? Is he further aware that we want a decision quickly and that for every week he delays a decision 70 more people will be maimed or injured by crimes of violence in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchan: That is an absolutely shocking statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] It is absolutely untrue to say that we can forecast the possible consequences of a possible useful measure. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this measure will cut out all crime, which is absolute nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has not even been demonstrated how effective it might be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his statement.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Would my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members and members of the public are becoming tired of this campaign being flogged by political opponents inside and outside the House, which is not in the best long-term interests of public-police relationships and is tending to divert the public mind from constructive approaches to the causes of crime and delinquency?
    Mr. Buchan: There is a great deal of truth in that. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend and others that a good deal of constructive work has been done, which has been ignored by hon. Members opposite. For example, the recent Crime-stop Exhibition bought about an immediate 20 per cent. increase in incidents reported, but that would have the effect of

    1353
    pushing up the statistics and no doubt hon. Gentlemen would be getting on their bandwagon again.
    Mr. Noble: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), the desire for a decision to be made is coming, not just from the Opposition, but from the Glasgow Corporation and Glasgow police? It is three months since he told us that he was looking for the right solution, and nothing whatever has happened.
    Mr. Buchan: Again the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There was a decision in connection with a request concerning powers of arrest when it was demonstrated that powers of arrest were more considerable than was realised. We are now looking at the second proposition—the power of search. But it is still important to inform the right hon. Gentleman and others that we want to make the right decision. That is most important.
    Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that what he is being asked by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is for the police in Glasgow to have the power to stop and search any person at random in any public place?
    Mr. Buchan: It has been a little difficult to know the consequences of the request made. It has been put to me as a power analogous to the power of search under the Firearms Act. On the other hand, it has been argued that the existing powers of arrest will subsume such powers. This is one of the problems which arise. I do not think, however, that they would claim they are seeking the power of random search, even though it may be interpreted in this way by hon. Members.
    Mr. Wylie: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be satisfied if he introduced powers, even of a temporary nature, to give this a try? We accept that we cannot in advance say what the effect will be, but we never will know unless we give it a try.
    Mr. Buchan: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has corrected the earlier statement of his hon. Friend in this respect. The possibility of an ex
    1354
    perimental time period is one of the matters I am looking into. There are certain difficulties in this, too. If the figures go down they will not necessarily prove that it was because of these powers. If they go up, further powers may be sought.
    Mr. Monro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Desecration of property
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to enlist the co-operation of the public in an effort to halt the desecration of property by vandals using spray guns; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion. Because one of the main difficulties lies in detecting the perpetrators public co-operation has a valuable part to play in dealing with this and other forms of vandalism and hooliganism. It is, however, best developed by local effort in the areas where the need arises.
    Mr. Dempsey: In view of the diabolical desecration of property, both private and public, from owner-occupied houses to churches, does not my hon. Friend believe that it would be better to outline precise plans to local authorities to invite the co-operation of the public, the police and the courts to stamp out this wilful type of desecration?
    Mr. Buchan: I am not sure that "diabolical" is the correct word. Sometimes it is the reverse, and there are strong religious connotations. But it is correct to say that we are trying to encourage public co-operation as much as possible.

    Nuclear Power Stations (Siting)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the machinery of consultation between his Department and other Departments involved in the siting of nuclear power stations for the future.
    Mr. Ross: Before a final decision is made in relation to any particular site all departments concerned are fully consulted, the proposal is advertised, and

    1355
    where appropriate a public inquiry is held.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee recommended this change in the siting of these stations? Is he further aware that hon. Members have been denied access to the Report?
    Mr. Ross: That may be so, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been fully considered by the Government. He should bear in mind that even now, after the change that has been announced about the siting, there will be full consideration and a full public inquiry, and local authorities and everyone else will be consulted.

    Forestry Commission Caravan Parks (Charges)
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what

    Car and Tent or Caravan

    Motorcycle and Tent

    Tent only

    Site

    Per night

    Per week

    Per night

    Per week

    Per night

    Per week

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    Glentrool, Galloway

    8

    6

    57

    0

    5

    6

    36

    0

    3

    0

    18

    0

    Glenmore, Inverness-shire

    4

    6*

    3

    0*

    1

    0*

    Cashel Cashel and Cobleland, Stirlingshire

    6

    0

    36

    0

    3

    0

    18

    0

    1

    6

    9

    0

    Ardgartan, Argyll

    5

    0

    30

    0

    3

    0

    18

    0

    1

    0

    6

    0

    *At Glenmore there will be an additional charge of 1s. per person per night for adults and for children over five years of age. A better site is available for an additional charge of 1s. 6d. per night.

    Hurricane-Blown Timber (Disposal)
    Miss Harvie Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now ask the Forestry Commission to defer felling licences until the hurricane-blown timber has been partially disposed of.
    Mr. Ross: The Forestry Commission has no power to defer felling licences for the purpose the hon. Member has in mind. An appeal has, however, been made for voluntary restraint in felling meanwhile, and the Forestry Commission is giving a lead in this direction in its own woodlands.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the voluntary restriction is not adequate and the matter is closely related to the question of a transport subsidy? Has that subsidy been discussed with W.A.G. and, if so, is
    charges will be made in Forestry Commission caravan parks this summer.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: With permission I will publish a table of the charges in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the need for keeping these charges as minimal as possible in view of the increasing number of people who can no longer afford any other kind of holiday?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes. The increases are consistent with the prices and incomes policy. At Glentrool there is an increase. At Glenmore the method of charging is so changed as to be difficult to compare with the present system. At the other sites in Scotland there are no increases.
    The following charges will be made for Forestry Commission caravan parks in Scotland this summer:
    he satisfied that all classes of timber have been included?
    Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Lady that I have made an announcement about this, the Forestry Commission has earlier issued details concerning the transport subsidy, and we have had questions on it today. As to the question of this not being enough, I have no statutory powers under the present Statutes governing forestry in relation to the withholding of licences in respect of the marketing of timber.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be impracticable to defer felling licences? Is he further aware that the pulp mill at Fort William, for instance, uses only certain sizes of timber which could not be ingathered from wind-blown areas alone and felling licences would be necessary?
    Mr. Ross: This is one of the problems facing people with contracts to fulfil, but where arrangements can be made we have asked them to make them.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Tourist Board following the 50 per cent. increase in the Selective Employment Tax; and what reply he has sent.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware that one reason must be because they are still recovering their breath after the latest example of Government ineptitude? Is it a fact that, in spite of the exemptions in the Finance Bill, the Scottish tourist industry as a whole will have to pay more in Selective Employment Tax than it did last year?
    Dr. Mabon: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should give the Scottish Tourist Board a little more credit. After all, it is examining the interesting proposal announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for inclusion in the Finance Bill, namely, that in certain parts of development areas there will be a refund of Selective Employment Tax to hotels. This will be debated in the Bill. At that stage the hon. Gentleman may be able to get a quantified answer to the second part of his question. He will also note that the effective rate of Selective Employment Tax on part-time employees is to remain as it is and that this rate is to be extended to all employees over the age of 65. I hope that the tourist trade appreciates these concessions also.
    Mr. Eadie: Can my hon. Friend confirm reports in the Press that the Scottish Tourist Board has said that this year it will have the biggest boom ever?
    Dr. Mabon: I am told that it had a good year in 1967 and expects to have a very good year this year. In fact, the industry is short of labour and is recruiting very fast. This tax does not seem to be a disincentive.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Minister of State now institute an inquiry into the effects of Selective Employment Tax in areas outwith the industrial belt?
    1358
    Otherwise the Government's limited action will continue to be too late.
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Chancellor announced that Mr. Reddaway of Cambridge University would conduct a very searching inquiry into the effects of the tax. We hope that his report will be published this year or early next year. The important point is that if the industry, or any part if it, feels that S.E.T. is a particular offence and not a fair burden to be imposed on it—and all have to accept burdens—it should make its case to Mr. Reddaway when he is making his inquiry.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Highland Development Board about the 50 per cent. increase in the Selective Employment Tax and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Ross: None, Sir.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that presumably the same reason applies as to my earlier Question? What further addition of capital would the Highland Development Board have to invest in the Highlands to meet that now being withdrawn from the Highlands by this increase in Selective Employment Tax?
    Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman puts that down as a Question I will consider it.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the effect of the increases in Selective Employment Tax in Scotland as announced in the recent Budget statement; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Ross: None, Sir.
    Mr. Eadie: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea of the redistribution effects of the S.E.T. between manufacturing and distribution?
    Mr. Ross: Not without notice.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the right hon. Gentleman sat in on, agreed to, and approved a Budget which brought about an increase in the S.E.T., and in petrol and vehicle licences, all of which

    1359
    discriminate against Scotland, does not he agree that the reason why he has not received any letters is that people do not think it worth writing to him?
    Mr. Ross: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke about the S.E.T. and the benefits which accrued to Scotland with the changes that were announced.

    Agriculture and Horticulture
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further estimate he has made of the losses suffered by agriculture and horticulture as a result of the hurricane in January.
    Mr. Ross: As was explained to the hon. Gentleman in reply to a similar Question on 6th March an estimate can only be made in respect of the damage to farm buildings and other fixed equipment as revealed by applications under the various improvement schemes. The estimated cost of the work to which these relate is now £1,440,000, but, of course, this figure includes an element of improvement as well as restoration.—[Vol. 760, c. 78.]
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many farmers suffered serious consequential loss, and that he is expected by the farming industry to take some further action to help those whose building losses were uninsurable? Will he consider cases of hardship, and so give credibility to his claim that this hurricane would be treated as a national disaster?
    Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Gentleman should appreciate the position. I am sure that he would not like me to restore assets which were not insurable because of the state of them.
    Mr. MacArthur: The nature of them.
    Mr. Ross: This is one of the things which form part of the difficulty in relation to any provision. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been very flexible indeed in our administration of the improvement schemes, to ensure that there is no hardship.

    Health Centre, Gorbals
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the proposed health centre will be built in the Gorbals area of Glasgow.
    Mr. Millan: I hope that it will be possible to begin building towards the end of next year, and that the health centre will be completed early in 1971.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the moment there is a shortage of doctors in the Gorbals, and that with redevelopment more properties are coming down, and as these properties also house surgeries, it will be a sad business both for doctors and for patients if this centre is not provided a bit sooner than the end of next year?
    Mr. Millan: I know that this has taken rather a long time, but I think that we are now proceeding as fast as we can.
    On the question of doctors displaced by redevelopment, I think that it has been the practice of Glasgow Corporation to provide them with temporary premises, and I am sure that if there are any further cases of displacement the Corporation will be glad to follow that practice.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Scottish Development Department to carry out and publish an investigation into the extent to which manufacturing industry operating in Scotland has been placed at a disadvantage in competing with manufacturing industry in England as a result of successive increases in hydrocarbon oil duties and vehicle excise duties since October, 1964.
    Mr. Ross: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish farms which are further from their markets and from their suppliers than farms in England, will inevitably be more severely affected by the increase in licence duties and petrol duty? In view of that, will he give his support to the widespread demand in Scotland that now that the Minister of Transport has been forced to abandon the abnormal load charge, the wear and tear charge should be abandoned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Ross: If that were to happen, it would not affect Scotland beneficially, unless of course the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be a differential rate in Scotland.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why not?
    Mr. Ross: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the burden is uniform. When we consider this against the known and quantified advantages which industry in Scotland have, for instance under R.E.P., Where £40 million a year comes to Scotland, we realise that the picture is quite different.
    I further remind the hon. Gentleman that the Toothill Report found no evidence to support the contention that transport costs were a significant additional burden on manufacturing industry in industrial Scotland.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We still have many Questions to deal with.

    Scottish Plan
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the impact of the Budget on the fulfilment of the Scottish Plan.
    Mr. Ross: By strengthening the national economy the Budget measures will clearly help to promote our economic objectives for Scotland.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That is about the biggest load of moonshine that we have heard in this Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time we scrapped this tatty bit of paper, the Scottish Plan? Will he give serious consideration to the proposal by the Scottish Council of the C.B.I. that Corporation Tax on firms in Scotland should be cut by 50 per cent., and distributions by close companies to the same extent, and the R.E.P. scrapped in exchange?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had better face the fact that he has been proclaiming disaster for Scotland for years, but thank goodness it has never come about. If he thinks that my forecasts are wrong, perhaps he will look at the statement in the Observer and the Sunday Times at the weekend of what Lord Polwarth said on Scottish industrial prospects in his report on the Bank of Scotland?
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the hon.
    1362
    Gentleman says that many industrialists in Scotland are doing badly, they are able to give financial support to the Conservative Party, as has now been found out?
    Mr. Ross: All I can say is that hon. Gentlemen opposite need all the support they can get. If their financial masters heard them today, and indeed every day, they would change their minds about whether they were worth supporting.

    Houses (Industrialised Building Methods)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the proportion of total houses being built by industrialised building methods.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) on 26th February by my right hon. Friend.—[Vol. 759, c. 254–5.]
    Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the benefit of industrialised building is not so much in the cost as in the speed of erection? At a time when houses are falling into greater disrepair because of the hurricane and other damage, does not he think he should encourage industrialised building, instead of working against it with such things as the Transport Bill?
    Dr. Mabon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment about the earlier years when we were getting the industrial building sector enlarged. He may be interested in the figures. In 1965 industrialised building accounted for 24 per cent. of the number of houses approved in the public sector. In 1966 the figure was 33 per cent., and in 1967 it was 36 per cent. I am not aware that the Transport Bill is relevant to the future of industrialised building.

    Scottish Economy (White Paper)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now issue a revised version of the White Paper on the Scottish Economy, Command Paper No. 2864, so that the targets and time-scale can be brought up to date.
    Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 6th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 97.]
    Mr. Younger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that virtually every figure in that Plan is now out of date? As he told us when it was produced that it was essential that the people of Scotland should know what to do and when to get it done, is it not time that he produced another plan to let us know?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Not all the figures are out of date. I assure him that the public expenditure aspects of this have been well maintained, and are well up to target. They would never have been achieved by the party opposite.

    Distilling Industry
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up an inquiry into the potential of the distilling industry as a source of employment in development areas.
    Mr. Ross: No, Sir.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent increase in spirit duty could easily reduce the consumption of whisky? Quite apart from any other consequences, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in many areas of Scotland this could have serious implications for employment, particularly where few other jobs are available? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to bring this to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Ross: This has been brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by those who are more closely connected with the industry than I am. The hon. Gentleman referred to a reduction in the consumption of whisky. He should bear in mind that 84 per cent. of the whisky output is exported. The increase of half a crown a bottle relates to home consumption. He will realise the limited effect which this will have. I have my doubts about whether this will lead to reduced consumption.

    Crimes of Violence
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his further proposals to
    1364
    deal with the increase in crimes of violence in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchan: I have already informed the House of the action my right hon. Friend and I are taking for the prevention of crime and the protection of the public.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: But considering this in the short term, is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the question of the powers of search of the police for offensive weapons has now been under discussion for over six months? Is not this delay utterly inexcusable? Why this lack of decision and leadership?
    Mr. Buchan: Despite the earlier questions, hon. Gentlemen still get it wrong. It was only in December—there is no question of a six months' delay—that, contrary to a previous point of view, the question of search was raised with me. This is what we are now discussing.
    Mr. David Steel: Has the hon. Gentleman yet had time to consider my suggestion in a recent debate about examining the entry qualifications for the Scottish police force and the way in which some young possible recruits are recruited into the English force because of the different standards of entry?
    Mr. Buchan: We have been having a look at this question of education in the police forces. This is important. One of the positive things coming out this month—hon. Members will be pleased at this—is the fact that, for the first three months, there has been a net increase of 83 in the Scottish police force, compared with only 51 for the whole of last year. This is very encouraging.

    Building Regulations
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for codifying the Building Regulations for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Amendments of the Regulations under the present procedure should be followed by occasional consolidation under a simpler procedure. My right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of legislation to enable this to be done.
    Mr. Baker: While welcoming that statement, may I ask whether the hon.

    1365
    Gentleman would not agree that it is not before time for steps to be taken because, in some cases, as many as seven Departments have to be consulted, with five sets of plans, before any action is taken? This is not only wasteful but expensive to those who want to develop.
    Dr. Mabon: I am grateful to the hon. Member for complimenting us on getting ahead. We have considered the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on this matter. We have examined its two suggestions, but it is clear that we will have to consider legislation to do something better in this field.

    Scottish Fishery Protection Squadron
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will define the duties of the Scottish Fishery Protection Squadron.
    Mr. Buchan: My Department's eight fishery protection vessels are employed primarily to enforce the law relating to methods of sea fishing in coastal waters around Scotland. In addition their duties include ensuring that foreign fishing vessels observe British fishery limits; rendering assistance generally to fishing vessels: and enforcing a variety of regulations, including those prescribing minimum sizes of mesh of fishing nets.
    Mr. Baker: Has the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend considered the idea of employing a squadron of hovercraft for this work? If so, when is it likely?
    Mr. Buchan: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have established a committee which is investigating the whole problem of regulation and protection around our coastal waters. I met some of the committee members last week and I know that they are pursuing their inquiries diligently.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I congratulate the Fishery Protection Squadron on its excellent service up to the present, but does the Minister realise that it needs to be increased and also needs an additional air arm?
    Mr. Buchan: As I thought I said earlier, the committee is looking at all appropriate matters concerned with increasing the squadron's strength.

    Certificated Teachers
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he plans to give to local education authorities regarding the terms of service of certificated teachers who have not registered with the General Teaching Council.
    Mr. Millan: None, Sir. The statutory position regarding employment of such teachers is set out in the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956, as recently amended, and their salaries are a matter for the education authority.
    Mr. Brewis: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a report from the convenor of one of Glasgow's education committees that all certificated or unregistered teachers in Glasgow are likely to be dismissed? Will he disavow this report?
    Mr. Millan: I have not seen the report and therefore cannot disavow it.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is real concern about this, not only among local authorities but among teachers? Will he tell the House, now or in an early statement, what action he proposes under the Schools (Scotland) Code from 1st August this year, and how this will affect unregistered teachers in primary schools and those who are still unregistered in secondary schools?
    Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that, as from 1st August, unregistered teachers—that is, those who are neither fully nor conditionally registered—will not be employed in primary schools. As to secondary schools, there is a procedure, of which he should be aware, for reference panels.

    Convicted Persons (Public Works)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him concerning the use of convicted criminals for public works in the Highlands; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations on this subject.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the spokesman of the Scottish

    1367
    National Party recently suggested that difficult tenants and drivers convicted of drunken driving should be sent to the Highlands as a means of repopulating the Highlands? Can he say what reaction there has been from the Highlands to this proposal?
    Mr. Buchan: I am not sure of the reaction in the Highlands, but I know what my reaction is, as someone who originated there. The methods which the present Government are adopting for redeveloping the Highlands are the correct methods.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this statement was not by a spokesman of the Scottish National Party but the privately expressed opinion of one individual member of it? In any case, does his Department consider modern theories of criminology for example, those used in Sweden, where certain convicted prisoners are put to work instead of remaining a burden on the State?
    Mr. Buchan: When two different points of view are put forward by members of the same party, it is sometimes difficult to know which is the party's point of view. This has been a great difficulty for us all in recent months. I take it that the hon. Lady is repudiating the statement which was made in this connection, but this is not a matter primarily for me. On the second point, we spend a good deal of time considering the progressive work which is done in other countries and there is none which I am not prepared to consider if it would be helpful.

    Forth Road Bridge (Tolls Charge)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for further industrial development in Fife and the east of Scotland generally, he will take steps to prevent any increase in toll charges on the Forth Road Bridge.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the review of the finances of the Bridge which my right hon. Friend is making in consultation with the Joint Board he is taking fully into account the needs of economic development, as well as all the other relevant factors.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon Friend recognise that, although we appreciate
    1368
    the difficulties of the bridge finances, it is nevertheless imperative that the economic development of Fife and the whole of East Scotland should go ahead on the basis set by this Government and that nothing should be done to impede that progress, as I fear an increase in tolls would do?
    Dr. Mabon: I accept my hon. Friend's basic point, although I would not accept that any increase in toll would necessarily have that effect. However, I will give an absolute assurance that the need for economic development is a very pertinent factor in this exercise.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Is it not a fact that the private motorist is bearing a very unfair burden of tolls on the Forth Road Bridge, compared with commercial vehicles?
    Dr. Mabon: In that case, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman directs his complaint to those who formed this financial arrangement and imposed these prices. They are not on our benches. I should not like to prejudice the present discussions with the Joint Board.
    Mr. Noble: I do not accept that this was imposed by us. The suggestion came from the Road Bridge Board, which was a very different thing. But does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the advent of this bridge has made an enormous difference to the development of Fife, and that we are all extremely grateful for it?
    Dr. Mabon: The answer to the two questions is, "Yes, Sir". As to the underlying point about responsibility, the Government of the day promoted the Forth Road Bridge Order and must accept the responsibility for the financial arrangements which are now proving so embarrassing.

    Crime (Young People)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent action and facilities in existence or in course of preparation, have as their objective the reduction of tendencies towards crime among young people and the social regeneration of those young people already convicted of crime.
    Mr. Millan: The importance of encouraging young people to develop constructive interests as a way of counteracting tendencies towards crime is

    1369
    fully recognised by all concerned with the increasing provision of recreation and further educational facilities. Social work both in the family and in the community will be facilitated by the integration of the social work services proposed by the Social Work (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend look closely into the excellent work that is being done by the Chief Constable of Lanarkshire and some of his associates in fostering excellent relations between young people and the police in the county? Having done that, will he spread the information elsewhere?
    Mr. Millan: I am to some extent already aware of that work and I certainly agree that anything of that nature that can be done is extremely helpful.

MALTA (DOCKYARD)
3.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): In the statement, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) made to the House on 3rd April in his capacity as Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, he undertook to give the House details of the additional financial help which we shall make available to the Malta Government as a result of the recent talks which my noble Friend, the Paymaster General, held with the Prime Minister of Malta about the Malta Dockyard.
The Malta Parliament in the early hours of this morning unanimously passed legislation bringing the Malta Dockyard into public ownership and thus ensured its continued operation. It is the intention of the Malta Government to develop and diversify the dockyard and to make it more competitive.
Under this legislation the Malta Government have acquired the shares of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. against payment of such compensation as may be determined by the Maltese courts, in accordance with Section 33 of the Malta Constitution. Provision is made by the legislation for the transfer 10 a newly established corporation of the assets of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. necessary for the running of the dockyard and certain of its liabilities. The legis
1370
lation also provides for the winding up of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. The price for the assets so transferred, to be paid to the liquidator, will be established by the Maltese courts.
The responsibility for the Malta Dockyard now rests wholly with the Government of Malta. I am glad to say that we are able to make an important contribution towards meeting the cost to the Malta Government of putting their plans into effect. First, we intend to pay over to the Malta Government a sum not exceeding an amount equivalent to our receipts as creditors in the winding up of Bailey (Malta) Ltd. in respect of our loans to the dockyard.
Secondly, in recognition of the importance of the future prosperity of the dockyard, we are allocating for the dockyard £3 million of the £51 million made available to the Malta Government under the financial agreement of September, 1964. The Malta Government will be able, if this should prove necessary, to draw on this £3 million for purposes related to the transfer of the dockyard to Malta, the balance being devoted to the development and diversification of the dockyard. At the end of the 10 year period covered by the financial agreement, an additional £3 million of aid will be provided for development projects. This money will be disbursed by 31st March, 1976. In addition, we intend to provide a feasibility study of the development and diversification of the dockyard. The two Governments are already in contact over this, and we hope that arrangements for the study can be completed soon.
The result that we have achieved is that the Malta Government have been able to acquire the dockyard undertaking and are in a position to develop it for the benefit of Malta. I would like to add my gratitude and congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General for bringing to such a successful conclusion a problem that has for so long created such difficulty to the Governments both of Malta and of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has made a complicated statement and he will realise that we will want to study it in detail. Apart from that, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be delighted to know that some agreement has been reached; and we wish the people of Malta well.
Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that it is a complicated and long statement, but I thought that the House would like to have the details so that they could be studied.
Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the problems of the British ship-repairing industry have been taken into consideration in reaching this agreement? Will he go further and give an assurance that this agreement will not damage employment prospects in those parts of our development areas which are particularly dependent on ship repairing?
Mr. Thomson: Questions on this aspect should be addressed to the Minister of Technology or the President of the Board of Trade. It is, of course, impossible to predict in precise terms the effect that this agreement may have on the arrangements for ship repairing in this country. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the arrangements which I have announced will have no effect on our main naval repair programme.
Mr. Gower: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the action of the Malta Government in some respects anticipates the decision of a court affecting Bailey Ltd. which are closely identified with the South Wales ports? Did he offer help to the Malta Government without making some effort to protect Bailey (Malta) Ltd. from this action?
Mr. Thomson: I am afraid that I cannot accept the assumptions lying behind the hon. Gentleman's question. Litigation is in existence between Her Majesty's Government and Bailey and, in these circumstances, the matter is sub judice and it would be improper for me to comment on it.
Mr. Edelman: What reason does my right hon. Friend have for optimism about the viability of the dockyard which, until recently, was almost totally lacking in orders? Will he further define what he means by "diversification" in this connection?
Mr. Thomson: The dockyard has been particularly affected by the closure of the Suez Canal. It is in this respect that the word "diversification" which I used is, as my hon. Friend no doubt
1372
suspected, of importance. What is suggested is that studies might be made to find out whether the dockyard undertaking, which has some good equipment attached to it, might be diversified or could provide employment in work other than ship repairing.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the total cost to the British taxpayer has been since this episode started with the Admiralty giving up the dockyard?
Mr. Thomson: Not without notice. The main obligations were incurred by our predecessors. What we are now offering to help this new undertaking to develop properly is £3 million of additional aid after the end of the currency of the present agreement in 1974.
Mr. Dalyell: In view of the British financial liability, do Her Majesty's Government have a representative on the newly formed corporation?
Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. As I indicated, the arrangements which have now been made mean that the ownership and control of the dockyard will be entirely in the hands of the Government of Malta.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: During the conversations, did the Secretary of State get some assurance from the Malta Government that this dockyard is likely to be operating in future on more efficient lines, and that no guarantee could possibly be given that all the people who have been employed there for some time will always remain in their present jobs? Is he aware that unless this point has been brought home to the people who work in the dockyard, there will be no hope of it becoming a viable proposition?
Mr. Thomson: I very much note the points made by the hon. Gentleman. However, these matters are now the responsibility of the Government of Malta who, from now on, own and run the dockyard.
Mr. John Page: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of Swan Hunter in connection with the operations of the dockyard? Is he aware that people in Malta and Britain will be delighted at the successful outcome

1373
which has been achieved and which should mean a happy future for Malta from the dockyard point of view?
Mr. Thomson: I am obliged for the hon. Gentleman's final words. The new arrangements are, of course, the result of legislation passed by the Parliament of Malta and are not matters on which I should comment in detail. The legislation sets up a Malta drydocks corporation. That will have a chairman and between four and eight members, all of whom will be appointed by the Prime Minister of Malta. It will be their obligation to decide how, and under what management arrangements, the dockyard is to be run.

POST OFFICE CHARGES
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): With permission, I should like to make a statement about Post Office charges.
My predecessor has already announced that the Government accept the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes that the Post Office should raise additional revenue through increased charges.
For telecommunications we require additional revenue to help finance the huge capital programme which must be undertaken to improve the service for existing users, and to give the country the telecommunications service it needs. Despite what the Board calls "an impressively fast increase in manpower productivity" this programme cannot be financed from the present charges without an unacceptable fall in the return on capital employed. Productivity improvements and business growth are also insufficient to, offset rising costs in the postal service. This is a labour intensive industry—over 70 per cent. of the costs Lire for labour—and although we are making a major effort on mechanisation there will always be large areas of the job which can never be mechanised.
I accept in principle the Board's recommendations about telecommunications charges. The main changes will be as fellows. The rentals for residential lines will be increased by 10s. a quarter; but there will be no changes in the rentals
1374
for business lines. On charges for trunk calls, I accept the Board's proposals on the amount of money to be raised, but not their proposals for three different rates during a weekday. It is of paramount importance that the charging structure should be readily understood by our customers—and also by the Post Office staff who have to operate it. I propose, therefore, to have a peak rate applying throughout the day Mondays to Fridays: the charges will be increased by about a quarter during this period. A cheap rate, longer than the present one, will apply throughout the night and all day on Sundays: most trunk calls will be cheaper than at present during these times. A new intermediate rate, slightly lower than the present full rate, will be introduced on Saturdays during the day. These changes will be introduced on 1st October.
As the Board recommends, I am increasing the connection charge from a maximum of £10 to a maximum of £20. This charge will operate from 16th April. At the same time I shall no longer require one year's rental in advance from new customers. We shall revert to the former arrangement of one quarter's rental in advance.
New posts: the House knows that we have said that we would introduce a two-tier letter service this autumn. Customers would pay according to the speed of service they want instead of according to the content of their letter, as at present. The two-tier service will start on 16th September. The basic charge for a first class letter will be 5d. and for a second class letter 4d. There will be no increase in charges for remittances and inland parcels.
Registered newspapers are at present sent at the printed rate, but are given the same speed of service as letters. Withdrawal of the concession at a time when postage rates are being raised generally would mean a double increase for newspapers. I propose, therefore, to continue the concession under the two-tier system by giving newspapers the first class service for the second class rate; but I will confine it in future to registered newspapers posted by publishers or their agents.
There will be some changes also in charges for overseas mails.

1375
Full details of all the changes in telecommunications and postal charges will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Board's Report does not consist only of recommendations about charges. There are many others which I am studying closely, but I would remind the House of the conclusion of the Board's Report:
"…we think the very substantial merits of the Post Office should be recognised. In spite of its defects we have been favourably impressed with its efficiency and with its high regard for the public interest."
Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that, although we congratulate him on his recent promotion, we cannot congratulate him on his maiden statement in that office?
May I ask two questions? What are his comments on the very disquieting report of the Prices and Incomes Board that the Post Office costing system, upon which these huge increases are entirely based, does not provide appropriate data? Secondly, does the Postmaster-General intend in future to be guided by the financial objectives laid down by the White Paper on Nationalised Industries for the criteria of the Government's prices and incomes policy? No private industry would be allowed to raise its prices just to make a profit of 8 per cent.
Mr. Mason: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks.
As to his two queries, I am aware of the criticism by the Prices and Incomes Board regarding our costings arrangements, and I assure him that that matter is under review. Secondly, in future this will be a combination of the comments in the White Paper on Nationalised Industries and in keeping with our present prices and incomes and productivity policy.
Mr. J. T. Price: Although I would require to consider the statement and to make comment on it later, could my right hon. Friend tell me at this stage, on the basis of the new revenue which is estimated from these increased charges, how much new capital is required to be generated and what percentage of new capital is required out of current revenue to finance future capital projects?
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that question, because most of what we are trying to do now is because of failures of the previous Tory Administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] On telecommunications the increases should bring in £40 million a year and on posts about £27 million a year. We are intending to spend £100 million on the postal side in the next three years and £1,100 million on investment in telecommunications in the next three years.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Postmaster-General give same idea of the sort of service which will be given in respect of the second class 4d. letter mail? For example, how long does he expect the interval to be between the posting of such a letter in London and delivery in another area? What effect does he think this will have on the cost of living?
Mr. Mason: The change in the cost of living will be·01 per cent. As to reliability, if a 5d. stamp is on the letter—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, a 4d. stamp.
Mr. Mason: If a 5d. stamp is on the letter, we hope to increase reliability and to guarantee early delivery. With a 4d. stamp, in many instances, when posted locally it will still be delivered within 24 hours, but those who put a 4d. stamp on a letter must expect to have a delay of 24 hours as distinct from the first-class service.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown: May I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck in his new job? I think he will need it, but some of us will try to ensure that he gets some. Would he agree that if the record of productivity achieved by the unions in the Post Office were matched by private enterprise we would have no economic problem in the country?
Mr. Mason: I thank my hon. Friend, first, for his good wishes and, secondly, for his helpful supplementary question, especially as it referred to the Post Office engineers, who have been increasing their productivity at the rate of 8 per cent. per year over the past five years, which is something which British industry generally could emulate.
Dr. Winstanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have much

1377
sympathy with him in having been given such a distasteful task in his new job, and we welcome the abolition of the requirement of a year's telephone rental in advance? But is he aware that these charges will have grave implications throughout the whole United Kingdom and will bear heavily on certain sections, such as old people living at home and in old people's hostels? Will he have discussions with the Minister of Social Security on methods of relieving these?
Mr. Mason: I should have thought that the House is now aware that we have established a Fellowship at the University of Essex to examine communications for those confined permanently at home and communications for the elderly. I should prefer to await the outcome of that report. Other Ministers are involved, particularly the Minister of Social Security.
Mr. Strauss: Will my right hon. Friend clarify an answer he gave? In future will letters posted in London, say by 6 o'clock in the evening, whether they have a 4d. or a 5d. stamp, be delivered in London by the first post next day? If not, will it not be exceedingly difficult and expensive to separate those which carry a 4d. stamp from those with a 5d. stamp?
Mr. Mason: As I said initially, in local cases probably those with a 4d., stamp and those with a 5d. stamp will be delivered the next morning, but those with a 5d. stamp will get priority.
Mr. Younger: Is the Postmaster-General aware that announcement of increases of this kind at a time when wages are about to be frozen is staggering? Does he realise that virtually every private industry in the country could adduce exactly the same reasons as he has adduced for raising prices? What would be the result for the economy if that happened?
Mr. Mason: The question is based on a wrong premise. Wages have not been frozen in the past and will not be in future.
Mr. Hooley: Can the Postmaster-General say whether his two-tier letter system can be viable if a substantial proportion of people continue to put a 4d. stamp on their letters?
Mr. Mason: They will now have the opportunity of having either a first-class service for 5d. or a second-class service with 24-hours' delay for 4d.
Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Postmaster-General say why the Bell Telephone Co. in the United States last year was able to reduce its telephone charges, and also why the Americans have been able to keep their postal charges stable over the last four years?
Mr. Mason: No, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman has encouraged me to go over there and find out.
Dr. Gray: Should not my hon. Friend be meeting his costs instead of trying to make a profit? In any case, why should his profit be 8 per cent. and not 3½ per cent. or less?
Mr. Mason: It is not a question of meeting costs. In the next twelve months it is anticipated that the posts will lose £12 million, and the increase will offset that.
Mr. Bryan: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the public is getting increasingly irritated by Government-owned industries opting out of the Government's prices and incomes policy?
Mr. Mason: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few months ago, if the private sector are going to increase their tariffs they should submit them to the Prices and Incomes Board first. This applies to the nationalised sector as well, and I see no reason why the Post Office should not do likewise.
Miss Herbison: With reference to a previous question, is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the American industrialists in this country are filled with praise for the postal services, particularly those who have experience of the postal services in America?
Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. The Post Office handles 230 million letters and printed papers per week, and in relation to that number we get very few complaints.
Sir T. Beamish: Since it will probably cost more to deliver a 4d. letter than a 5d. letter, ought not the Post Office to charge 5d. for the 4d. stamp and 4d. for the 5d. stamp?
Mr. Speaker: There is apparently no answer to that question.
Mr. Winnick: Is it intended that the two-tier arrangement for 4d. and 5d. stamps should be a permanent arrangement? Is there not a danger that the 4d. service will become slower and slower in order to encourage people to use 5d. stamps?
Mr. Mason: Permanent at this stage, yes. On the latter point, I shall do my utmost to make sure that does not happen.
Sir H. Harrison: Could I ask the Postmaster-General whether he will think again about the sick and elderly living

POST OFFICE TARIFFS

1.—TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

1. Changes to operate from 16th April, 1968:—

(a) Connection charges

Present

Proposed

£

s.

£

s.

Maximum exchange line connection charge (up to 3 miles chargeable length)

10

0

20

0

Note:Connection charges for temporary telephone services will be increased proportionately subject to a maximum of £30.

2. Changes to operate from 1st October, 1968:—

(a) Exchange Line Rentals

Present

Proposed

£

s.

£

s.

Residence lines

(per quarter)

(per quarter)

Exclusive

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

3

10

4

0

Shared

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

3

0

3

10

(b) Call Charges
1. The charges for local calls from exchanges without STD (untimed will not be changed.
2. For time calls, the present two rate structure for trunk and local call will be replaced by a new pattern of three rates for trunk calls and two rates for calls as follows:—

(i) Peak charge:

Trunk and Local

…

From 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday (instead of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Saturday as at present).

(ii) Cheapest charge:

Trunk and Local

…

All day Sunday (as at present) and extended up to 8 a.m. on other days.

Local only

…

Saturday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

(iii) Intermediate charges:

Trunk only

…

Saturday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

3. Details are as follows:

(i) Inland calls

Present

Proposed

6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday

6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday

6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday

8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday

8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday

6 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday

Local Calls from

STD exchanges

Ordinary subscribers

2d. for

2d. for

2d. for

2d. for

2d. for

2d. for

6 mins.

6 mins.

12 mins.

4 mins.

12 mins.

12 mins.

Coinboxes

…

6d. for

6d. for

6d. for

6d. for

6d. for

6d. for

6 mins.

6 mins.

12 mins

6 mins.

12 mins.

12 mins.

Trunk Calls

STD

Ordinary Subscribers

Secs. for 2d.

Secs. for 2d.

Secs. for 2d.

Secs. for 2d.

Secs. for 2d.

Secs. for 2d.

Up to 35 miles

…

30

30

60

24

36

60

35 to 50 miles

…

15

15

30

12

18

30

Over 50 miles

…

10

10

20

8

12

alone in remote country areas and for whom a telephone is essential? I am not thinking only of those who come within the social security provisions but also the next strata of income groups.
Mr. Mason: The House ought to be aware that the Post Office has no section within its Department able to check the validity of claims from old people, old-age pensioners, the limbless and a variety of others needing these services. It is a matter for another Department, the Ministry of Social Security, and we must await the examination that I announced earlier.
The following are the details:

Present

Proposed

6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday

6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday

6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday

8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday

8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday

6 p.m. to 8 a.m. Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday

Coinboxes

Secs. for 6d.

Secs. for 6d.

Secs. for 6d.

Secs. for 6d.

Secs. for 6d.

Secs. for 6d.

Up to 35 miles

…

60

60

120

48

72

120

35 to 50 miles

…

30

30

60

24

36

60

Over 50 miles

…

20

20

40

16

24

Connected by the Operator

3 mins.

3 mins.

3 mins.

3 mins.

3 mins

3 mins.

Ordinary Subscribers

Up to 35 miles

…

1s. 0d.

1s. 0d.

9d.

1s. 6d.

1s. 0d.

6d.

35 to 50 miles

…

2s. 0d.

2s. 0d.

1s. 3d.

2s. 6d.

2s. 0d.

1s. 0d.

50 to 75 miles

…

3s. 0d.

3s. 0d.

1s. 9d.

4s. 0d.

3s. 0d.

2s. 0d.

75 to 125 miles

…

3s. 6d.

3s. 6d.

2s. 3d.

Over 125 miles

…

4s. 0d.

4s. 0d.

Coinboxes

Up to 35 miles

…

1s. 6d.

1s. 6d.

1s. 0d.

2s. 6d.

1s. 6d.

1s. 0d.

35 to 50 miles

…

2s. 6d.

2s. 6d.

1s. 6d.

3s. 6d.

2s. 6d.

1s. 6d.

50 to 75 miles

…

3s. 6d.

3s. 6d.

2s. 0d.

5s. 0d.

3s. 6d.

2s. 6d.

75 to 125 miles

…

4s. 0d.

4s. 0d.

2s. 6d.

Over 125 miles

…

4s. 6d.

4s. 6d.

(c) Telephone Call Facilities

Facility

Present

Proposed

Alarm Call

Subscriber (STD)

…

…

6d.

2s.

Subscriber (without STD)

…

5d. Residence

1s. 8d. Residence

6d. Business

2s. Business

Coinbox (STD)

…

…

1s.

2s.

Coinbox (without STD)

…

8d.

2s.

Credit card

Call

…

…

No extra charge

6d. fee on each call

Card—first card

…

…

5s. quarter

No change

extra card with same number

No charge

2s. 6d. quarter

Personal Call fee

Full rate

…

…

1s. 6d.

2s.

Cheap rate

…

…

1s.

Transferred charge call fee

3d. (6d. where money has to be inserted in coinbox)

6d. on all calls

Advice of duration and charge

…

Inland Calls—3d.

Inland Calls—6d.

Overseas Calls—No charge

Overseas Calls—2s.

Fixed time call fee

…

…

6d. for single call

6d. for all calls

5d. each for a series of calls

Temporary transfer and interception of calls

Casual use of facility

…

Each continuous period of up to 7 days—5s.

2s. a day with a minimum

Each day in excess of 7 (subject to a maximum of 5s. for each 7 days)—9d.

Each complete period of

1 month—15s.

Regular use

…

…

…

1 month—15s.

£4 quarter or part of quarter

2 successive months—£1 10s.

3 successive months—£2

Temporary disconnection of telephone service

Casual rate

…

…

…

5s. per installation for each separate continuous period of disconnection

10s. per exchange line for each separate continuous period of disconnection

Contract rate

…

…

…

1 month—15s.

Contract rate to be abolished

2 successive months—£1 10s.

3 successive months—£2

Particulars of manually connected trunk calls

1s. for 25 items

2s. for 25 items

Note: Charges for other miscellaneous facilities such as picture calls, night busying, etc., subject to individual agreement, will also be increased, after due notice where appropriate.

(d) Charges for Telephone Directory Entries

Main Directories

Present

Proposed

London Postal Area

Outer London and Provinces

London Postal Area

Outer London and Provinces

£

s.

£

s.

£

s.

£

s.

(per annum)

(per annum)

(per annum)

(per annum)

1. Main entry in heavy type

…

…

1

16

1

7

6

0

£2–£4 according to circulation of directory

2. Extra entry in ordinary type

…

12

9

2

0

1

0

3. Extra entry in heavy type

…

…

2

8

1

16

8

0

£3–£5 according to circulation of directory

4. Entry in a main directory other than that in which main entry is listed

(a) ordinary type

…

…

New service

4

0

4

0

(b) heavy type

…

…

10

0

£6–£8 according to circulation of directory

5. Entry containing supplementary information (additional to 3 words of description allowed free for businesses)—Per word

6

6

1

0

1

0

£

s.

(per annum)

Business Directories

1. Main entry in heavy type

…

…

New Services

8

0

2. Extra entry in ordinary type

…

2

0

3. Extra entry in heavy type

…

…

10

0

4. Entry containing supplementary information, additional to 3 words of description allowed free—Per word

1

0

5. Entry for single-line business

…

4

0

£

s.

(per annum)

Local Telephone Directories

1. Main entry in heavy type

12

1

10

2. Extra entry in ordinary type where there is no corresponding extra entry in main directory

6

1

0

3. Extra entry in heavy type

(a) where there is a corresponding extra entry in ordinary type or heavy type in the main telephone directory

12

1

10

Present

Proposed

£

s.

£

s.

(per annum)

(per annum)

(b) where there is no corresponding extra entry in the main telephone directory

18

2

10

4. Entry containing one or more extra words which do not appear in a corresponding entry in the main telephone directory—For each extra word

3

12

5. Entry in a local directory other than that in which the main entry is listed

(i) ordinary type

New service

2

0

(ii) heavy type

3

10

(e) Directory Enquiry Service

Present

Proposed

"Vague" enquiry for telephone number

Search fee when information provided by caller is insufficient for number to be found readily: For each search—whether successful or not

No charge

1s.

Enquiry for subscriber's name and address

For each name and address

No charge

1s. in addition to any chargeable call if enquiries are beyond local call area of enquirer

(f) Internal Extension Rentals

Present (per quarter)

Proposed (per quarter)

£

s.

£

s.

Plan 1, 1A, 1B or 1C

…

…

…

…

10

14

Plan 2: Two main stations

…

…

…

10

10

each associated internal extension

…

…

12

14

Plan 3

…

…

…

…

…

16

1

5

Plan 4

…

…

…

…

…

6

8

each additional telephone

…

…

…

9

12

Plan 5 or 5A

…

…

…

…

…

2

0

2

10

Plan 7 or 7A

…

…

…

…

…

1

5

1

15

Plan 8

…

…

…

…

…

16

1

0

Plan 9

…

…

…

…

…

1

0

1

5

Plan 10

…

…

…

…

…

1

6

1

10

Plan 11

…

…

…

…

…

1

0

1

8

Plan 12 or 12A

…

…

…

…

…

16

1

5

Plan 105 or 105A

…

…

…

…

…

2

10

2

15

Plan 107 or 107A

…

…

…

…

…

1

15

2

0

Note: Connection charges are unchanged except that for coupling plan 2 main stations which will be reduced from £4 to £2.

(g) External Extensions

(i) Rental

Present

Proposed

£

s.

£

s.

Mileage Charge

(per quarter)

(per quarter)

Up to 1 furlong

…

15

Up to 1 furlong

…

1

0

Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs

…

1

10

Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs

…

2

0

Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs

…

2

5

Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs

…

3

0

Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs

…

3

0

Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs

…

4

0

Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs

…

4

10

Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs

…

5

10

And so on by ¼ mile steps

And so on by 0s. Steps

Over 6 furlongs up to 1 mile

…

7

0

And so on by ¼ mile steps

…

And so on by £2 steps

Over 1½ miles up to 1¾ miles

…

12

15

Over 1¾ miles up to 2 miles

…

14

10

And so on by ¾ mile steps

…

And so on by £1 10s. steps

Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…

21

0

Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…

23

10

And so on by ½ mile steps

…

And so on by £3 steps

And so on by ½ mile steps

…

And so on by £3 steps

Over 4½ miles up to 5 miles

…

30

0

Present

Proposed

£

s.

£

s.

(per quarter)

(per quarter)

Over 5 miles up to 6 miles

…

35

0

Over 5 miles up to 6 miles

…

37

10

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

And so on by £5 steps

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

And so on by £5 steps

Up to 30 miles at

…

…

…

155

0

Up to 30 miles at

…

…

…

157

10

No change above 30 miles

Note: These rates are doubled for Plan 9 extension circuits. Where appropriate, plan extension rentals (section (f) above) are additional.

(ii) Connexion Charge

Up to 5 miles

…

…

…

£5

Up to ½ mile

…

…

…

£5

Over ½ mile up to 5 miles

…

£10

No change above 5 miles

(h) Private Manual Branch Exchange Rentals

Present (per quarter)

Proposed (per quarter)

£

s.

£

s.

Other than multiple type

Size:

1+3

…

…

…

…

2

10

3

0

2+4

…

…

…

…

3

0

4

0

2+6

…

…

…

…

4

10

5

0

3+7 or 3+9

…

…

…

…

6

0

8

0

3 + 12

…

…

…

…

8

0

10

0

3+12 (panel type)

…

…

…

9

0

11

0

3 + 10 or 5+20

…

…

…

12

0

13

0

5+25 (panel type)

…

…

…

15

0

22

0

10+30

…

…

…

…

18

0

25

0

10 + 50

…

…

…

…

22

0

30

0

10+60

…

…

…

…

25

0

35

0

Multiple type: each section

…

…

33

0

42

10

Standby power supply equipment

3 + 12

…

…

…

…

13

0

9

0

3 + 12 (panel type)

…

…

…

13

0

10

0

4+18

…

…

…

…

14

0

12

0

5+25 (panel type)

…

…

…

15

0

12

0

Note 1: Connection charges and internal removal charges will be twice the proposed quarterly rental, except that for multiple types the connection charge will be four times the quarterly rental.
Note 2: Charges for other PMBX facilities, provided under individual agreement, will be adjusted after due notice.

(i) Private Automatic Branch Exchanges (PABX) Rentals

Present

Proposed

£

s.

£

s.

(per quarter)

(per quarter)

PABX Type 1

4+15

…

…

…

…

…

40

0

55

0

5+24

…

…

…

…

…

50

0

65

0

7+35

…

…

…

…

…

60

0

75

0

10+49

…

…

…

…

…

70

0

85

0

PABX Type 2

4+15

…

…

…

…

…

50

0

70

0

5+24

…

…

…

…

…

60

0

80

0

7+35

…

…

…

…

…

70

0

90

0

10+49

…

…

…

…

…

80

0

100

0

PABX Types 5 or 6

3+10

…

…

…

…

…

45

0

50

0

5+20

…

…

…

…

…

55

0

60

0

Note 1: Connection charges and internal removal charges will be twice the proposed quarterly rental. (At present the connection charge for PABX types 1 and 2 is four times the quarterly rental.).

Note 2: Charges for certain other PABXs and facilities, provided under individual agreement, will be adjusted after due notice.

(i) Private Branch Exchanges—Associated Equipment (Connection Charge and Rentals)

Present

Proposed

Connection Charge

Rental

Connection Charge

Rental

(Maximum)

(per quarter)

(Maximum)

(per quarter)

£

£

s.

d.

£

£

s.

d.

Special additional switchboard for nigh: working connected with a PMBX Additional switchboard

No rental or connection charge

Normal rental and connection charge according to type

For each exchange line and extension connected with such switchboard

2

6

0

2

9

0

For each private circuit, inter-switchboard and external extension connected with such switchboard

2

6

0

2

1

10

0

Note: Where additional switchboard is not in same building a mileage charge per circuit connected is also payable.

(k) Miscellaneous Equipment and Apparatus (Rentals)

Present Rental (per quarter)

Proposed Rental (per quarter)

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Emergency press button on coinbox

…

…

…

4

6

5

0

Breastplate transmitters

Instead of standard transmitter

…

…

…

…

7

6

9

0

Headgear Receiver

In addition to standard receiver:—

Single

…

…

…

…

3

0

5

0

Double

…

…

…

…

4

6

8

0

Instead of standard receiver:—

Single

…

…

…

…

Nil

5

0

Double

…

…

…

…

3

0

8

0

Breastplate transmitter and headgear receiver combined

In addition to standard instrument:—

With single headgear receiver

…

…

…

…

10

6

12

0

With double headgear receiver

…

…

…

…

13

6

15

0

Instead of standard instrument:—

With single headgear receiver

…

…

…

…

7

6

12

0

With double headgear receiver

…

…

…

…

10

6

15

0

Lightweight headset

No. 1

…

…

…

…

10

6

12

0

No. 2

…

…

…

…

13

6

15

0

Extension Bell

Continuous Ringing

Intermitten Ringing

All Types

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Trembler 2½ inch (battery operated)

…

…

…

4

6

3

0

4

0

Trembler 4 inch (battery operated)

…

…

…

6

0

3

9

10

0

Trembler 6 inch (battery operated)

…

…

…

9

0

6

0

10

0

Trembler 12 inch (battery operated)

…

…

…

13

6

9

0

1

0

0

Trembler 6 inch (mains operated)

…

…

…

9

0

6

0

10

0

Trembler 10 inch (mains operated)

…

…

…

10

6

7

6

15

0

Magneto 2½ inch

…

…

…

…

…

—

1

6

3

0

Magneto Cow gong

…

…

…

…

…

—

2

3

3

0

Magneto 6 inch

…

…

…

…

…

—

3

0

6

0

Switchboard internal buzzer

…

…

…

…

…

Nil

5

0

Hooter (mains operated)

…

…

…

…

…

9

0

9

0

15

0

Apparatus used for provision of service to ships in dock

10 yards of cable or part thereof

…

…

…

…

2

3

3

0

Each additional 10 yards or part thereof

…

…

2

3

3

0

Weatherproof plug and socket

…

…

…

…

6

9

6

0

Special Protective Apparatus

Flameproof wall telephone (No. 149)

…

…

…

18

0

1

10

0

Flameproof table telephone (No. 266)

…

…

…

Specially assessed

1

10

0

Flameproof telephone in 700 series

…

…

…

Specially assessed

2

10

0

Protector Box

…

…

…

…

…

…

4

6

Single payment charge

2

10

0

Plugs and sockets (2 of each)

…

…

…

…

New items

1

13

0

Flameproof Relay

…

…

…

…

…

…

18

0

Flameproof Magneto Bell

…

…

…

…

…

1

0

0

Flameproof Mains Bell

…

…

…

…

…

1

13

0

Cable Pyrotenax

25 yards or part thereof

…

…

11

0

Cable Polythene

11

0

Conduit

1

0

0

Indicators

Drop indicator on continuous ringing bell circuit

…

3

9

5

0

Eyeball or drop indicator

…

…

…

…

…

2

0

5

0

Mains voltage lamp signals on exchange line or extension

Discontinuous

…

…

…

…

…

…

6

0

12

0

Continuous (press button control)

…

…

…

Continuous (switchhook control)

…

…

…

…

11

3

9

0

Additionally, if lamp circuit provided by P.O.

…

…

Nil

7

0

Pendant Telephone

…

…

…

…

…

…

3

9

8

0

Plug and socket instead of normal termination strip

…

2

0

4

0

Watch receiver

…

…

…

…

…

…

2

3

2

0

Loudspeaking Telephones

No. 1

…

…

…

…

…

…

2

0

0

2

10

0

No. 2

…

…

…

…

…

…

5

0

0

6

0

0

No. 3

…

…

…

…

…

…

3

10

0

4

0

0

Present Rental

Proposed Rental

(per quarter)

(per quarter)

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Footswitch to provide transmitter cut-out

…

…

…

1

6

3

0

Meters at subscribers' premises

Clock type meter

…

…

…

…

…

…

1

0

0

15

0

Answering sets

Answering Set No. 1

…

…

…

…

…

…

8

0

0

6

0

0

Answering Set No. 2

…

…

…

…

…

…

13

0

0

13

10

0

House exchange system; internal extension between HES and PBX.

Same as for main station

15

0

Note 1: Connection charges, where applicable, remain unchanged except charges ranging from £1 to £5 are to be introduced for bells, hooters, buzzers, indicators, watch receivers, mains voltage lamp signals on exchange line or extension and certain protective apparatus.

Note 2: A standard single payment charge of 30s. is to be introduced for certain minor items, e.g. change of instrument, change of apparatus, fitting of wall bracket, etc. Existing charges range from 10s. to 30s.

(1) Inland Private Circuits

(i) External Private Speech-type circuits for continuous use (rentals)

A new tariff structure and new facilities will be introduced. The present arrangement of a basic circuit charge (Tariff S) with extra charges for various improvements will be replaced by four separate tariffs:—

Tariff S1 Basic point-to-point telephone circuit.

Tariff S2 Telephone circuit for switched private network: will include full automatic signalling and dialling over any distance (new facility).

Tariff S3 Telephone circuit for switched private network: signalling as on Tariff S2.

Tariff T Data transmission circuit for transmission speeds of the order of 2,400 bauds.

Tariff S2—Proposed

Rate per annum

£

Up to 1 furlong

…

…

…

…

…

…

4

Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

…

8

Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

12

Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

16

Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

22

Over 6 furlongs up to 8 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

28

And so on by ¼ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £6 steps

Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…

…

…

…

…

88

And so on by ½ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £12 steps

Over 5 miles up to 6 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

146

Over 6 miles up to 7 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

168

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £20 steps

Over 27 miles up to 28 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

586

Rate per annum

£

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £16 steps

Over 30 miles up to 35 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

670

And so on by 5 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £50 steps

Over 50 miles up to 60 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

920

And so on by 10 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £100 steps

Over 200 miles up to 210 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

2,400

And so on by 10 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £80 steps

Over 300 miles up to 325 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

3,220

And so on by 25 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £100 steps

Over 400 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

3,620

Tariff S3—Proposed

Up to 1 furlong

…

…

…

…

…

…

8

Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

…

16

Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

24

Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

32

Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

44

Over 6 furlongs up to 8 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

56

And so on by ¼ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £12 steps

Over 1½ miles up to 1¾ miles

…

…

…

…

90

And so on by ¼ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £10 steps

Over 2 miles up to 2¼ miles

…

…

…

…

…

108

And so on by ¼ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £8 steps

Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…

…

…

…

…

148

And so on by ½ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £16 steps

Over 5 miles up to 6 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

216

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £20 steps

Over 14 miles up to 15 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

395

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £19 steps

Over 25 miles up to 26 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

604

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £16 steps

Over 30 miles up to 35 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

720

And so on by 5 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £50 steps

Over 50 miles up to 60 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

970

And so on by 10 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £100 steps

Over 200 miles up to 210 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

2,450

And so on by 10 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £80 steps

Over 300 miles up to 325 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

3,270

And so on by 25 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £100 steps

Over 400 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

3,670

Note: In the case of circuits on Tariffs S2 and S3 over 15 miles in length, the annual rate will be reduced by £35 for one termination and £70 for both terminations where signalling and dialling equipment is not provided by the Post Office, subject to a minimum charge of £328 for circuits on Tariff S2 and £395 for circuits on Tariff S3.

Tariff T—Proposed

Up to 1 furlong

…

…

…

…

…

…

10

Over 1 furlong up to 2 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

…

20

Over 2 furlongs up to 3 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

30

Over 3 furlongs up to 4 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

40

Over 4 furlongs up to 6 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

54

Over 6 furlongs up to 8 furlongs

…

…

…

…

…

68

And so on by ¼ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £14 steps

Over 1½ miles up to 1¾ miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

108

Over 1¾ miles up to 2 miles

…

…

…

…

…

120

And so on by ¼ mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £10 steps

Over 3 miles up to 3½ miles

…

…

…

…

…

180

Over 3½ miles up to 4 miles

…

…

…

…

…

200

Over 4 miles up to 4½ miles

…

…

…

…

…

218

Over 4½ miles up to 5 miles

…

…

…

…

…

235

And so on by 1 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £18 steps

Over 30 miles up to 35 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

760

And so on by 5 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £60 steps

Over 50 miles up to 60 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

1,060

And so on by 10 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £120 steps

Over 100 miles up to 110 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

1,650

And so on by 10 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £100 steps

Over 200 miles up to 210 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

2,630

And so on by 10 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £80 steps

Over 300 miles up to 325 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

3,450

And so on by 25 mile steps

…

…

…

…

…

…

And so on by £100 steps

Over 400 miles

…

…

…

…

…

…

3,850

(ii) External Private Speech-type Circuits for continuous use (Connection Charge)

Present

Proposed

Up to 5 miles

…

…

…

£5

Up to ½ mile

…

…

£5

Over ½ mile up to 5 miles

…

£10

No change above 5 miles

(iii) Private Speech-type Circuit provided for non-continuous use (rental)

Present

Charged at proportions of Tariff S for whole circuit, according to daily period of use, regardless of number of days' service per week.

Proposed

Two part method of charging:—

(i) Permanently rented circuits from premises to serving exchange at Tariff S1.

(ii) Periods of use of main links (serving exchange to serving exchange) as shown below:

(m) Telex Service

Present

Proposed

Connection Charge

Each major item of apparatus

…

…

NIL

£10

Reconnection Charge

…

…

NIL

£1

Additional Rental for Excess Mileage

Initial 30 miles radial distance from nearest telex centre

No charge

No charge

Then for each mile between 30 and 75 miles

£2 p.a.

Then for each mile between 75 and 200 miles

£1 10s. p.a.

Then for each mile in excess of 200 miles

…

£1 p.a.

Call Charges

Dialled seconds for 2d.

Connected by operator (3 minutes)

Dialled seconds for 2d.

Connected by operator (3 minutes)

On same telex centre or between centres up to 15 miles apart

60

6d.

60

6d.

Between centres up to 15–35 miles apart

…

60

9d.

60

6d.

Between centres up to 35–50 miles apart

…

30

1s.

30

1s.

Between centres up to 50–75 miles apart

…

20

1s. 3d.

30

1s.

Between centres up to 75–125 miles apart

…

15

1s. 6d.

15

2s.

Between centres over 125 miles apart

…

15

2s.

15

2s.

Telex Call Office Charge

Present

Proposed

Charge additional to normal telex call charge for each call

1s.

2s. 6d.

Internal Removals

Each major item of apparatus

…

…

Cost of work

£10

Miscellaneous Telex Apparatus

Charges for miscellaneous telegraph apparatus subject to individual agreement, will be increased after due notice.

(n) Wireless Telegraphy Licences (other than Broadcast Receiving Licences)

Aeronautical Ground Station

…

…

£1

£1 10s.

Aircraft

…

…

…

…

£1

Not exceeding £2 10s.

Amateur (Sound)

…

…

…

…

£2

£3

Amateur (Television)

…

…

…

£2

£3

Amateur (Sound Mobile)

…

…

…

£1

£1 10s.

Induction Communication

…

…

…

£2 (5 years)

£3 (5 years)

Light Station

…

…

…

…

£1 (5 years)

£1 10s. (5 years)

Model Control

…

…

…

…

£1 (5 years)

£1 10s. (5 years)

Police and Fire

…

…

…

…

£2

Not exceeding £3

Private Mobile Radio

…

…

…

£3 each first two stations.

£4 each first two stations

£2 each subsequent station

£2 5s. each subsequent station

Private Mobile Radio (limited period)

…

£1 per licence

£1 per station

Radar (Land) Station

…

…

…

£1 (5 years)

£1 10s. (5 years)

Radio Beacon

…

…

…

…

£1 (5 years)

£1 10s. (5 years)

Ship

…

…

…

…

£2

Not exceeding £4 10s.

Ship (Receiving only)

…

…

…

£1

Not exceeding £2 10s.

Testing and Development

Radiating

…

…

…

…

£2

£3

Suppressed Radiation

…

…

…

£1 (5 years)

£1 10s. (5 years)

Training Establishment

…

…

…

£2 (5 years)

£3 (5 years)

Other licences

…

…

…

…

Various

Generally increased by 50 per cent.

II.—INLAND MAIL SERVICES

(including services to the Irish Republic)

(Changes to operate from 16th September, 1968)

4. LETTERS

Fully Paid Letters

1st Class Letters

Printed Papers

2nd Class Letters

Weight Not Over

(Present)

(Proposed Under Two-Tier)

(Present)

(Proposed Under Two-Tier)

lb.

oz.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

2

4

5

3

4

4

6

5

5

4

6

8

9

6

6

8

10

1

0

7

8

10

1

0

1

3

8

10

12

1

2

1

6

9

1

0

14

1

4

1

9

10

1

2

1

0

1

6

2

0

11

1

4

1

2

1

9

2

3

1

0

1

6

1

4

2

0

2

6

1

1

1

7

1

6

2

3

2

9

1

2

1

8

1

8

2

6

3

0

1

3

1

9

1

10

3

6

4

0

1

4

Maximum

1

12

3

6

4

0

1

5

1

14

3

6

4

0

1

6

2

0

3

6

4

0

1

7

3

0

5

6

6

0

Maximum

4

0

7

6

8

0

5

0

9

6

10

0

6

0

11

6

12

0

III.—OVERSEAS SURFACE MAIL SERVICES (Except Parcels)

(Changes to operate from 16th September, 1968)

Present

Proposed

s.

d.

s.

d.

5. COMMONWEALTH LETTERS

Not over 1 oz.

…

…

…

…

…

…

4

5

Each additional oz.

…

…

…

…

…

…

1½

2

6. COMMONWEALTH POSTCARDS

…

…

…

…

…

3

5

7. PRINTED PAPERS—REDUCED RATE

(i) Posted singly

Not over 2 oz.

…

…

…

…

…

…

2

2

Over 2 oz. and up to 4 oz.

…

…

…

…

…

3½

3

Each additional weight step

…

…

…

…

1½

3

(per 2 oz.)

(per 4 oz.)

(ii) Posted in bulk

First lb.

…

…

…

…

…

…

1

0½

1

0

Each additional lb.

…

…

…

…

…

…

1

0

(Less 5 per cent. rebate)

V.—Other Overseas Mail Services

(Changes to operate from 16th September, 1968)

Present

Proposed

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

9. MAXIMUM COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE

(i) Registered packets

…

…

…

…

…

…

2

18

0

3

8

0

(ii) Uninsured parcels

…

…

…

…

…

…

4

13

0

5

9

0

10. INSURANCE FEES (for letters, boxes and parcels)

For initial limit of compensation

…

…

…

…

3

2

3

2

(£24 limit)

(£28 limit)

For each additional step in scale of limits of compensation

…

2

2

(per£12)

(per £14)

11. CUSTOMS CLEARANCE FEES

Letters

…

…

…

…

…

…

1

6

1

9

Parcels

…

…

…

…

…

…

2

6

2

9

12. STORAGE FEE (for incoming parcels awaiting clearance)

After free storage for 28 days

…

…

…

…

…

—

1

0

(per day)

AGE OF MAJORITY (LATEY COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): As soon as Parliamentary time can be found, the Government hope to introduce legislation to implement most of the recommendations made by the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority, whose Report (Cmnd. 3342) was presented to Parliament in July 1967.
The Committee considered the law relating to minors in England and Wales and unanimously recomended that most of the present limits on full capacity in civil law should be removed for persons between the ages of 18 and 21, and nine out of 11 members of the Committee recommended that all such limits should be removed.
1402
Having carefully considered the Committee's proposals as well as the debates in this House on 20th November and in another place on 22nd November, 1967, the Government have decided that it would be right to reduce the age of majority to 18 and in general they propose to follow the recommendations of the majority of the Committee.
The legislation to be introduced will reduce from 21 to 18 the age at which a person has full powers to enter into a binding contract, to give a valid receipt and to hold and dispose of property. The minimum age for making a will, for acting as a trustee or personal representative, for acquiring an independent domicile and for consenting to the giving of blood will also be 18. The need for parental or court consent to the marriage

1403
of a person between the ages of 18 and 21 will also be removed; and the powers of the courts to make adoption orders, to award custody of and access to children and to make them wards of court up to the age of 21 will be similarly curtailed. Certain other amendments to the law affecting minors will also be made, including a statutory power for a minor of 16 or over to consent to medical or dental treatment including blood tests.
Certain of the recommendations of the Report will not be covered by this legislation: any changes in the law of taxation, for example, will have to be dealt with in a Finance Bill. Moreover, some of the more detailed recommendations are still being studied. The intended legislation will not affect the age of voting, which was outside the Committee's terms of reference and concerning which the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law has recently reported.
The House may also wish to know that, in accordance with the recommendations of the Latey Committee, my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has asked the Law Commission to consider the Committee's proposals for substantive changes in the law of infants' contracts and the structural changes in the courts which they suggested. These two topics fit conveniently into the Commission's first and second programmes.
The Latey Committee's inquiry was, of course, confined to England and Wales: in many respects minors in Scotland are already free from the restrictions which apply to young persons under English law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is at presnt considering whether legislation is required to amend the law of Scotland in relation to minors.
Sir P. Rawlinson: The Attorney-General will doubtless appreciate that the Bill will be complex. Will he assure the House that it will be printed in good time before we have a debate and before it is presented to Parliament? Can he tell us when it might be presented to Parliament? Thirdly, does he appreciate that, if the Bill contains the proposals he has outlined, the Bill will deal with property and marriage at the age of 18? The Speaker's Conference has recommended the age of 20 for voting,
1404
and the Law Commission is invited to look at infants' contracts and the courts. Would it not be much more sensible law reform for all these matters to be put together in a comprehensive Bill?
The Attorney-General: I do not think so. With regard to the last part of the submission of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the recommendations of the Latey Committee on the matters about which legislation is proposed are self-contained and are a measure of law reform which I think is necessary and for which there is a good deal of demand. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be abundant time for consideration of a Bill before it is debated. I cannot give the date of the expected publication of the Bill, but it will not be for some time.
Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a general welcome to the announcement he has made on behalf of the Government, and that many young people have already expressed their opinion that they hope that the Government will act in this way? The younger generation will be very disappointed that the Government have not announced at the same time that they will bring the voting age into line with the age recommended by the Latey Committee for the other heavy responsibilities. The Government will have to address itself to the question. Young people who are to be able to conclude a contract in law and to do all these other things, surely ought to have a right to take part in political decisions.
The Attorney-General: The Government are addressing themselves to the question, but the process of examination has not yet been completed. It is not long since the Report of the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law was received. It is obviously a very serious and important matter which requires further consideration.
Mr. Grieve: While the House will appreciate that the Attorney-General is unable to go into all the fiscal consequences of the proposal to reduce the age of majority to 18, will he nevertheless assure us that, in the light of his statement, there can now be no question of aggregating with the incomes of their parents the incomes of children over 18?
The Attorney-General: As I said, any matters affecting taxation are matters for the Finance Bill and are not within the ambit of the statement that I have made or the proposed Bill arising from the Latey Committee's Report.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is nothing sacred about the age of 18? Will he bear in mind, contrary to what another speaker at the Speaker's Conference has said, that it was by an overwhelming majority, with only one dissentient, that we decided that the age be 20, and that, when considering a situation in which people decide their own personal affairs, it may be right to settle on the age of 18, but that when considering the general corporate affairs of the country, the age of 20 is more sensible?
The Attorney-General: While I appreciate that there is nothing sacred about the age of 18, if I may say so, there is nothing sacred either about the age of 21 or 20. But there are important public considerations arising which I venture to think need further examination by all parties in the House.
Mr. Lubbock: If every other restriction on the affairs of a young person between the ages of 20 and 21 is to be removed, from the giving of blood to buying a house, including contracts entered into by them which are covered by legislation passed by this House, would it not be totally unacceptable for the Government to introduce legislation without removing the restrictions on young persons to take part in political activities? Will he announce the Government's conclusions on the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law, before the recommendations reach this House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the legislation include provisions laying down that boys press-ganged into the Forces by rosy advertising may opt out at the age of 18?
The Attorney-General: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, while I do not accept his colourful language, the Government have announced that they are studying whether a satisfactory solution can be found to meet both the future defence needs of the country and the principles underlying the Latey Committee's
1406
recommendations. As to the hon. Gentleman's general submission, as I say, the proposals that I have made are an important self-contained measure and what I think is a much needed change in the law which can be done conveniently without necessarily involving consequences about the voting age. As to that, as I say, the matter is an important one for the future of this democracy. The Government are giving it urgent consideration, and the factors which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will no doubt be considered both by the Government and by the House when this important matter comes to be debated in due course.
Mr. James Griffiths: Like my hon. Friends, I warmly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Bearing in mind that it is now over 20 years ago that this House decided for the purpose of our social insurance scheme that persons should be treated as adults both for contributions and for benefits at the age of 18, and bearing in mind, too, that for the purposes which my hon. and learned Friend has outlined again they will be treated as adults, does he not agree that the case for the vote at the age of 18 is overwhelming?
The Attorney-General: I can only repeat what I have said several times. This matter is under active consideration by the Government.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—agree that these very important and sweeping changes would be better made on one occasion by United Kingdom legislation?
The Attorney-General: The law of Scotland is quite separate from that of England on this matter, and it seemed appropriate to deal with the law of Scotland quite separately.
Sir Knox Cunningham: And Northern Ireland.
Dr. Miller: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Government are to be congratulated on realising the increasing part that young people play in the affairs of our country and that this step will be warmly welcomed in the knowledge that the

1407
giving of responsibility does a tremendous amount towards making responsible citizens? But will he not look closely at the point made by other hon. Members about giving the vote to young people at the age of 18?
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the first part of my hon. Friend's observations, and I have already dealt several times with the second part.
Mr. Gower: In imposing new contractual obligations, duties and rights on young people of 18, will the Government take account of the fact that many of them are not in receipt of permanent incomes, and will they take account of such matters as parental responsibility? Will all these points be dealt with in the forthcoming legislation?
The Attorney-General: As I have said, the problem of infants' contracts will be referred to the Law Commission. The legislation will be confined to the matters which I mentioned in my statement.
Mr. Whitaker: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the principle of no taxation without representation, and about the unfairness of young people being expected to give their lives for their country in times of war without being able to vote on the policies relating thereto? Does he not consider that it is in the interests of society that young people have a democratic right to express their opinions rather than being frustrated when they feel strongly about matters of policy?
The Attorney-General: The Latey Committee did not have the voting age as one of its terms of reference. My statement has been confined to matters arising out of the Latey Report. I can only repeat that the considerations which my hon. Friend has mentioned will be borne in mind by the Government in coming to a decision on the voting age.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the Attorney-General say when his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will complete his consideration and bring forward his proposals? Is he aware that the Secretary of State may be very able so far as consideration is concerned, but is not so noted for his ability to come to a decision?
The Attorney-General: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's observation. The alacrity with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes his decisions and acts is well known to all parts of the House. But I am afraid that I cannot say when his proposals will be brought forward.
Mr. Strauss: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the Latey Committee specially reported that the arguments which appeared to it to be overwhelming in recommending a reduction of the age to 18 for the various matters with which it was concerned did not apply to other matters such as voting, and that Mr. Speaker's all-party Conference, after very long and careful consideration, decided by a majority of 24 to 1 that 20 was the most appropriate age?
Mr. Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that it should be realised as a matter of fact that the terms of reference of the Latey Committee excluded its being in a position to deal with this problem. That is the real truth of the position.
Mr. Speaker: That is a point of information, not a point of order.

AGE OF MAJORITY (LATEY COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

  BALLOTS FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 29TH APRIL
  The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:

  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

  Mr. Tom Boardman.

  Mr. Ted Leadbitter.

  BILL PRESENTED
    RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
    Bill to amend Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, and to make further provision as to agreements. conflicting with Free Trade agreements, presented by Mr. Anthony Crosland, supported by Mr. M. Stewart, Mr. Shore, Mr. Benn, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Dell, read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS
4.9 p.m.
Mr. Arnold Shaw: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend to all persons employed the right to enjoy the benefits of Customary Holidays.
These holidays refer to those of Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and August Bank Holiday.
The subject of customary holidays has been raised previously in debate, mainly on the point as to whether the number of such holidays should be extended or whether there should be an alteration in the date on which one or other of the holidays should be held.
I was particularly interested in the arguments on an extension in the number of Bank Holidays made by the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) during a debate on the summer holiday season initiated by the hon. Gentleman the then Member for Honiton on 12th February, 1960. Both showed that in the matter of occasional holidays Britain lags sadly behind almost every other country in the world. I would quote from the reply to the debate by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade:
"The more we can extend the universality of holidays with pay, the more we shall all be pleased. It is essential for the wellbeing of people that they should get away from time to time and have a change of scenery and companions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 898.]
Mr. Speaker, I should say that there are very few who would not agree with that proposition, and it is with the question of universality that my Bill is concerned. I am not asking for any increase in the number of customary holidays but only that such holidays as there are should be universally enjoyed. In my reading of various debates on this subject, whether hon. Members were urging an extension of the number of such holidays or even a change in their timing, it seemed to me that it never occurred to them that there were numbers of people who not only did not have the benefit of holidays already established but also had no entitlement to them.
1410
This impression was confirmed by a spot inquiry which I made among a number of hon. Members of this House, all of whom were of the opinion that there was a statutory requirement on the part of the employer to allow these holidays. Indeed, so widespread has the custom of having these holidays become that there are very few members of the general public who have any doubts on this subject. The actual situation is that unless the employee is so covered in the terms of his contract of employment he has no absolute right to the enjoyment of the customary holidays but in fact most people are covered, either by Wage Council awards, trade union or even individual agreements. This leaves a minority—and I have no idea just how many—who because of weakness in their power of bargaining are at a disadvantage in this matter compared with other workers.
My own interest in the subject was aroused by the case of a constituent which I brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour where an employee in a betting office was so handicapped. It may well be that in other betting offices the employers are more generous; but this in no way alters the basic point that there is no inherent requirement for the employer to make any concession. It could be argued, and justifiably, that these people should join their appropriate trade union, thus putting themselves in a stronger bargaining position, and this I would accept. But in certain situations even the attraction of trade union membership is not always a complete answer and it is for Parliament to protect those who are too weak to protect themselves.
During the course of correspondence with the Minister on the matter to which I have referred I was informed:
"In this country terms and conditions of employment are settled between employers and employees and either party to the contract may at any time give due notice to terminate the contract of employment and may also propose the substitution of a fresh contract with different terms."
That may well be so, but it is not the complete picture in so far as the Government can and do interfere in the process, as in the case of those industries covered by wages councils where agreements on wages and conditions are made mandatory on the whole industry; and it is

1411
not unknown for the Government to have some say in wage and salary negotiations under its incomes policy. There is, too, a danger that in times of possible recession in any particular industry, employers might be tempted to present new terms of contract of employment which would have the effect of cancelling a previous agreement in the matter of holidays. This Is not likely to happen but it is a possibility.
Under these circumstances, I see no reason why it should not be made a statutory obligation upon all employers to allow their employees the enjoyment of customary holidays. It goes without saying that in certain occupations, public utility services, sport and entertainment and indeed even in betting offices, it is necessary for work to be done at such times. But this should not in any way debar those who are so engaged from being compensated by having time off in lieu or by additional payment.
Mr. Speaker, this Measure is an attempt to remedy an anomalous situation in which a number of people find themselves at a disadvantage and I would hope it will receive general acceptance by all sides of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold Shaw, Mr. John Ellis, Sir Barnett Janner and Mr. William Robinson.

CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS
  CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS
  Bill to extend to all persons employed the right to enjoy the benefits of Customary Holidays, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I have posted up, as is my wont, my selection of Amendments. The first debate will take place on Amendment No. 1, in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson).

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
    Clause 1.

      APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES, OATHS OF OFFICE, ETC.
      Sir Peter Rawlinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5 after 'area', to insert '(other than the City of London)'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall be taking Amendments No. 2, in page 1, line 18 at end insert:
      (2) The justices of the peace for the City of London shall continue as heretofore to have the jurisdiction and powers, as provided by the charters of the said City.

      No. 3, in page 2, line 33, leave out from is ' to mayor ' in line 34.

      No. 4, in page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (7).

      No. 5, in page 3, line 45, at end insert:
      (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply to the justices of the peace for the City of London.

      No. 7, in page 9, line 4, leave out Part I.

      No. 10, in page 14, line 7, leave out paragraph 10(1) or of'.

      No. 11, in page 14, line 8, leave out from `above' to end of line 10.

      No. 12, in page 14, line 16, leave out in relation to the City or'.

      No. 13, in page 14, line 22, leave out by the Corporation or'.

      No. 14, in page 14, leave out line 32.

      No. 15, in page 16, column 3, leave out lines 50 and 51.

      No. 16, in page 18, leave out lines 2 and 3.

      No. 17, in page 18, line 49, leave out onwards' and insert justices'.

      1413

      No. 18, in page 18, leave out lines 50 to 55.

      No. 19, in page 20, leave out lines 12 to 14.

      No. 20, in page 20, leave out line 17 and insert:
      In section 15(10) the words a clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court and'.
      No. 21, in page 20, leave out line 27 and insert:
      In section 21(7) the words `a clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court and'.
      No. 22, in page 20, leave out lines 29 to 37 and insert:
      In section 27(10), in paragraph (c), the words a clerk to a stipendiary magistrate, a clerk to a metropolitan stipendiary court,'; in paragraph (d) the words from ' and ' onwards, and paragraph (e).

      No. 23, in page 20, column 3, leave out lines 50 to 54.

      No. 24, in page 21, column 3, leave out lines 11 and 12.

      No. 25, in page 21, leave out lines 13 to 18.

      No. 26, in page 21, column 3, leave out lines 31 to 34.

      No. 27, in page 21, column 3, leave out lines 38 and 39.

      No. 28, in page 22, line 8, leave out from ' 22 ' to ' sub-paragraph in line 10.

      No. 29, in page 22, line 11, leave out from beginning to paragraph ' in line 13.

      Sir P. Rawlinson: It is certainly a pleasure that, in the exercise of your discretion, Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House we can debate this issue and reach a decision in the House. Because we are going to have now a debate upon this Amendment and the consequential Amendments, it is not and will not be necessary for my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself to move the Motion with regard to Third Reading; because what I want to do is to have this issue debated in this House and decided on the Floor of this House.
      As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of these Amendments is the exclusion of the City of London from the Justices of the Peace Bill, which was a Bill to whose general principles no objection was taken in any quarter of the whole of the House. But it was a fact that on the Second Reading hon. Mem
      1414
      bers from all sides of the House, in accepting and commending the Bill, criticised the inclusion of the City of London in its provisions because, as it was expressed by them, it is a very special case; and it was felt that the City of London should not be put into a Bill one of the main provisions of which was the exclusion of ex officio justices.
      I would say right at the beginning that one of our difficulties in dealing with a Bill such as this is that the Minister who is in charge of a Bill here in the House of Commons, as we all appreciate, is not the Minister whose Bill it is; under our procedures, the Attorney-General is the agent of the Lord Chancellor, because the Law Officers do not promote legislation. They are here to advise the Government and the House on matters of law. The Minister whose Bill this is is the Lord Chancellor. We are, therefore, at a certain disadvantage in not being able to direct our arguments to the man who can on his own initiative agree to the Amendment. Our advocacy must be very much secondhand. Only in another place can people speak direct to the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the Attorney-General will ensure that the Lord Chancellor has an opportunity to study the arguments which we shall advance. They were foreshadowed on Second Reading and dealt with shortly in Committee.
      It would make a farce of Parliamentary proceedings if it was thought that the prestige or authority of either the Government or of the Minister whose Bill this is was involved in the question whether the Amendment is accepted or defeated. I ask the House, as I have previously, to have a straightforward argument concerning what is the best system for the administration of criminal justice in this very special part of the United Kingdom. The type of arguments which should be advanced are arguments as to the merits of the proposal to change a system which will work well for centuries.
      The Bill proposes the removal of the ex officio justices of the peace from the roll of active justices of the peace. Hon. Members in all quarters of the House think this to be sensible. There are about 2,000 of these gentlemen. They have been elected to the mayoralty of their boroughs. They hold for one year a very special place of honour and dignity. Then

      1415
      they return to their membership of the council and to serving the community in the field. They have no inclination towards judicial work. They have had no training. They are very much birds of passage. They are not there to sit as justices of the peace, although in the past they have done so purely by virtue of their office.
      The City of London is a very different case. There are 26 aldermen there. They are elected from the Common Council. As one of their qualifications they must be thought to have the ability to perform the judicial function. That is a prime consideration for their election to aldermen. They are required to study textbooks. They are required to know about procedure before they sit. They are required to visit prisons, detention centres and borstals. They are required to attend a minimum of six sittings of the court in the City of London. They are required to attend outside the City of London at another court of summary jurisdiction. They are required to take instruction in the treatment of offenders and the system of probation. They take part in the same type of sentencing courses as those instituted by the Lord Chief Justice for High Court judges and those holding judicial office.
      Moreover, the City is the centre and the home of the most famous criminal court in the country—the Old Bailey. Aldermen have regular meetings and regular contacts with their Recorder and with the Common Serjeant, who are two senior judicial officers administering criminal justice in the City of London. In all these respects, and particularly in this last respect, the City is unique. We therefore start from the premise that this is a well trained magistracy, well versed in the exercise of their duties.
      I turn to consider, apart from their training, how well they carry out their duties. Their industry in performing their duties is exampled by the fact that in 1966–67 the Lord Mayor of the day sat at 76 different court sittings. On an average the Lord Mayor sits on more than 70 days. When the Lord Mayor comes to be the first magistrate of the City of London, he has had seven or eight years experience of the bench. Aldermen attend, on average, 30 court sittings a year. Some aldermen attend 44 court sittings.
      1416
      Therefore, these people are wholly different from ex officio justices who may sit once or twice during their year of office and who have not had any experience before they become the mayor of their borough.
      As to efficiency, I repeat the figures which were given in Committee. Whereas in 1950 the City of London magistrates dealt with 5,554 cases, a decade later the number had increased by 116 per cent. to 11,675 cases, and in 1967 they dealt with 19,025 cases, an increase of 350 per cent. since 1950.
      To judge whether these aldermen are doing their work properly and efficiently, it is right to turn to the record of appeals to see whether those who have, as it were, supervision over the exercise of their duties are satisfied with the way that they have performed them. Since 1945, only 11 out of the scores of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of cases with which these aldermen dealt went to the Divisional Court by way of case stated. Of that 11 only 5 were successful. In 1967 these aldermen dealt with more than 19,000 cases. If their administration of justice was unsatisfactory, if it was unacceptable, if there was much complaint about it, would not that be reflected in the number of appeals? There were twenty appeals out of 19,000 cases. Only 6 of those appeals were allowed. None denies the very impressive record of the court sitting in the City of London. The statistics show an efficient and successful service.
      This is corroborated by the various bodies who have had to review and examine the record of service of these aldermen. In 1948 the Royal Commission thought it right to leave the City alone. In 1966 the Lord Chief Justice, who sees far more of the criminal work in general, and who observes much more closely the work of the City of London in this respect than any of us, even the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor, congraulated these aldermen on the performance of their duty. He supported them and asked that second thoughts prevail over this matter.
      On Second Reading and in Committee the Attorney-General himself fairly conceded the high standards. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, if a court is unsatisfactory professional

      1417
      bodies often receive representations. Indeed, they make representations themselves. From my experience both as a Law Officer and as a member of the Bar Council I know of no complaints by the Law Society about the handling of cases by these aldermen. I have heard of representations against other courts, but never against this court.
      I turn to the question of cost. We must not overlook what the City provides with regard, for instance, to the Central Criminal Court. We must not forget the burden it bears. I know not whether it will be content to go on bearing that burden if the duties of aldermen on the bench are to be discontinued. As it is, the City produces £16,000 for the court of summary jurisdiction. This is a well manned, efficient, industrious, well-trained and successful administration of criminal justice. It meets with the approval of the appellate courts whose duty it is to supervise it. There has been no complaint against this form of administration of justice. It provides this system of administration of justice at low cost.
      It is now proposed to make a change. A cumbersome system will be imposed which will involve drafting in by appointment many other justices of the peace. If they are fit and able to be justices of the peace, as I am sure they will be, why are they not being used in the areas where they are needed and where they live? Why must they be brought in to the City from the outskirts of London, or wherever it is, to do a task that is already being done? It is a most inefficient proposal and extremely extravagant of court time. If it is carried out it will be at increased cost to the community.
      4.30 p.m.
      On Monday I said of certain proposals of the Government that they constituted cock-eyed law reform. Here we are having change for the sake of change, a change that is merely some kind of gimmick. Even if the system suffers it will still be done, because I understand that the Government's case is that although the system works successfully and there is no complaint about it, it offends against two principles. They do not ask whether it is a pragmatic and
      1418
      sensible system but whether it offends against those two principles. First, they say that justices of the peace should be drawn from different sections of the local population, and, second, that it is not right that a person should be tried by a lay justice sitting alone.
      But the City of London is unique in its geographical position and its population. The character of the City is wholly different from that of any other place in the country. The resident population consists of the caretakers and wives of barristers-at-law. People come into work in their scores of thousands every day and depart every evening. Therefore, the local population as such is very scarce.
      It may be thought that the present Bench is very well suited to deal with the many different cases it tries. One should have a bench designed for a particular purpose, so why not have this one in the City of London? Is it really necessary in the depths of the country—in the mountains of Wales, for example—to have a merchant banker or a stockbroker on the bench? Of course not. The present Bench of the City of London is suited for the best administration.
      I do not know how much it is thought that there should be younger men on the bench, but aldermen have sat at the age of 35. They include Sir Bernard Waley-Cohen. It is said that there are no present wage-earners on the bench, but there are many who have been wage-earners, including Sir Robert Bellinger himself.
      It is also said that there are no women. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in Committee to Lady Donaldson—that "rare bird" as he said in a particularly felicitous phrase. She may be a rare bird, but she may come to the aldermanic bench and there is no reason why she should not. Female stipendiary magistrates were pretty rare birds. I remember Miss Sybil Campbell, a redoubtable magistrate to appear before, and Miss Collins. There are very few female stipendiary magistrates in London now, so if that argument is right we should change that situation and have many more women magistrates.
      Mr. Ben Whitaker: Hear, hear.
      Sir P. Rawlinson: We know the hon. Gentleman's views on the rarity of birds.
      I turn to the second principle, that cases should not be tried by one justice alone. The City of London magistrates are not in the same position as justices of the peace elsewhere in the country. They are very special and well-trained expert justices. In Committee the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a comparison of the crime figures in the City and in Newport. I noticed that he did not give us the number of appeals. I do not know if Newport's record on the number of appeals can compare with that of the City of London which I gave earlier.
      There have been no complaints about the City of London system. If it were so objectionable there would have been complaints. There are very few juvenile cases, and it is not worth changing the whole system just for them. Compared with the figure of 19,000 which I gave for 1967, there were only 158 juvenile cases, and such cases are sent to Tower Hamlets. Because of the special character of the City—its emptiness at night—there are also very few domestic cases, and they are sent to Bow Street.
      Therefore, when we look at the whole argument we see that the onus is on the Government to satisfy the House that change is needed. If they fail to do that, they should leave the system alone instead of tinkering with it for the sake of doing so.
      At this time the last people who should be ignoring the question of cost are the Government. We are told that the extra cost will not be substantial, but how can that be so? If the system is to be changed there must be the appointment of many additional magistrates. It may be necessary to appoint 70 magistrates, and give them allowances and subsistence under the Bill and meet the financial loss they may sustain. There will also be the need for changed accommodation. Who will pay for arranging the accommodation for three magistrates as opposed to one? Above all, there is the question of time. There is no doubt that if there are more justices than the one aldermanic magistrate more time will be spent in hearing cases.
      So much for the two principles. There is still the argument that it is anomalous
      1420
      to have the City of London unique and different from the rest of the country. But the Bill bristles with anomalies, as those who were in Committee and discussed it on Second Reading know only too well. We had what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) referred to as the well-worn argument about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but still his position is an anomaly. If there should not be any anomalies in the law, why leave some and get rid of others? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has no more knowledge than anyone else of who to appoint as a magistrate, and would not pretend to have any. He is busy on his tasks in the North-East, but he is here left with that power. We should take that out of the Bill if we want it all so neat and tidy and sensible. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) says, "Yes". He has had plenty of opportunities to move an Amendment, but he has not taken them. I understand that he has preferred to remove one anomaly and leave others.
      The position of the Minister whose Bill this is, the Lord Chancellor, is anomalous. The Attorney-General, who was described as a stag at bay only two days ago, is an anomalous stag at bay. Here he sits discharging his duty of looking after Bills for the Government and then he goes away to another room and discharges quasi-judicial public duties. We accept that as a perfectly satisfactory position. If something is anomalous but works we should leave it as it is, I hope that those who always want to replace things with something different will consider very carefully before starting to make changes for the sake of change.
      We were told in Committee that this was no attack on the position of the City of London. I hope not. It is the financial centre of a great, complex organisation and is the greatest exporter there is. The fabric of the City has been an organic growth, and it has a system and prestige which has built up. Whatever any hon. Member opposite may say, one has only to go abroad and engage in the real business of nations to know the prestige of the City.
      The magistracy is part of the fabric, and the magistracy of the Lord Mayor over the peace of the City is associated

      1421
      with the work and position of the City. I believe that this change will do damage, and I would regret that if it happened leave aside all those matters such as the ancientness of the courts or the position of the magistracy. I am trying to deal with the case on merit. The present position has stood the test of time and should be allowed to remain. We see no argument against its efficiency or success. There are no complaints by practitioners or by people who live or work in the City.
      The Magistrates' Association, which has been anxious to remove ex officio justices, would, one might have thought, have joined with the Government in destroying this administration of justice by the City aldermen. The Association is known for its advocacy and energy in promoting improvements in the administration of the law. But the Association passed the following resolution in council:
      "That this Council is of the opinion that the main criticisms applicable to other ex officio appointments to the Bench do not apply to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, and asks for official reconsideration of their special duties, experience and a record."
      That is what the magistrates have said about this proposal.
      I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will listen to reason and to the arguments on their merits and that he will tell us that he undertakes to urge Caesar in another place to reconsider and withdraw the proposals. If he gives that undertaking, I will withdraw the Amendment. If not, when we return to power—and it will not be long before it happens—we shall do what we can, in the circumstances of the time, to return to the ancient, successful and efficient system of administration of criminal justice in the City of London.
      Mr. Gordon Oakes: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was described on Monday as a stag at bay and I appeared as one of the hunters. But I make it clear that I am a fully paid-up member of the League against Cruel Sports, and I support my right hon. and learned Friend in what he is attempting to do in this Bill.
      The closing remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) reminded me of our recent
      1422
      debate on defence but went much further than the Opposition did on that occasion. Then they wanted to take Britain back to the days of the British Empire. Today they would take it back to the days of the Middle Ages and assure us that that is what they will do if they return to power.
      The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that this system works well and, therefore, we should do nothing about it. If that argument were generally accepted on a worldwide scale, we could say that all sorts of régimes in the world work well, but that does not mean that they should not be improved. Because they work well does not mean that they work democratically. The onus on right hon. and hon. Members opposite is not to say, "It works well, so why change it?" The onus on them is to answer the question of why one area of the British Isles should have a substantially form of bench from other areas.
      Mr. Ian Percival: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of any system which works better and which we should put in place of this one in the City?
      Mr. Oakes: I am developing the point. This scheme will in fact work better because the magistrates will, I hope, come from all sections of the community instead of from the very narrow band from which they are presently drawn. That band must inevitably be narrow because the constitution of the Corporation is so designed. It has been said that there is no attack here on the Corporation. I wish there were. I cannot see why we should have the situation in which, in the centre of our capital city, the inhabitants, unlike everyone else in the country, have no opportunity of electing their own council. At least the Bill is giving them the opportunity of having magistrates drawn from all sections of the community, and that is essential.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is getting the argument back to front. The population does elect its representatives. What is more—not that I think that this is necessarily a good thing—it so happens that it elects its justices of the peace because it elects the aldermen. Under the

      1423
      Bill, they will lose that power of election, which is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman wants.
      Mr. Oakes: We are at cross purposes as to whom we regard as the inhabitants of the City. The Corporation is not elected by the ordinary inhabitants as other corporations are.
      Mr. Percy Grieve: Is the hon. Gentleman unaware that the greater part of the City is uninhabited at night, when the population largely consists of caretakers? Does he desire the the justices of the City to be elected by caretakers alone?
      Mr. Oakes: This is where the two sides of the House are at cross purposes. The representation of the caretakers, the firemen and the barristers' wives who have been mentioned as living there, ought to be on the basis that applies in the rest of the country. It should be done on the basis of where one lives and not on one's position in a certain organisation. This Bill will allow the City of London to have the same substantial system of justice and of the appointment of justices as other parts of the country.
      The onus is on the Opposition to say why there should be a separate system of justice in London. The figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend in Committee were amazing. He gave the comparison with Newport because it is the next town on the statistical list to London and the similarity of the cases coming before the magistrates of Newport and in the City is astonishing.
      The vast majority of cases coming before magistrates' courts concern motoring offences. In the relevant period, over 6,000 motoring cases came before the City justices. If there were a drawbridge around the City, so that the caretakers or those who go into the City to work and subsequently become aldermen were an island community, they would have the right to this peculiar sytem of appointment of justices. But anyone from any part of Britain may drive through the City and yet, if he is tried for an alleged motoring offence, he will encounter a completely different form of justice.
      He will find a justice sitting alone, which would be impossible anywhere else in the country unless he were a stipen
      1424
      diary magistrate. The magistrate will be sitting on the bench by virtue of his occupation and not because of his knowledge of the community or of motoring. Indeed, he may employ a chauffeur and never drive a car himself. Even if it is not true of him, this may well be the feeling of a motorist who appears before him.
      Obviously, since people go into the City from all over Britain, they should meet the same form of justice and the same type of bench that they would meet anywhere else in the country, and the magistrates sitting on that bench should be appointed in roughly the same way as the magistrates anywhere else in Britain.
      The argument was made out on Second Reading and to some extent in Committee, that the type of cases coming before the magistrates in London were peculiar in that they had regard to fraud, very big company cases and that kind of thing. Those cases are as rare as diamonds in the City court. The vast majority of the work done there is ordinary run-of-the-mill magistrates' court work.
      There is another point made about matrimonial and juvenile courts. The juvenile and matrimonial cases cannot come before the City of London magistrates because the court is not competent in law. It has the power to take such cases but because it has only one woman justice, insufficient women justices to take cases—[Interruption.]—there is no woman at all. I am sorry, there is a woman councillor. Because there is no woman sitting on the bench the court cannot take these cases, and they have to be shunted out to another court. The efficiency of the court is in question, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend resists to the full this mediaeval attempt by hon. Gentlemen opposite to retain this peculiar system of justice in one part of the British Isles.
      Mr. John Smith: I will not detain the House long, because the arguments both for and against these amendments have been heard from both sides of the House both on Second Reading and in Committee. I would say to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), who says that ours is a mediaeval argument, that one could certainly construct quite a good case on historical grounds for the Amendment; but the case that I put

      1425
      forward is a practical one, free from all the doctrinal promptings which have made it necessary for us to put down this Amendment.
      The Attorney-General said at the outset of the debate on the Bill in Second Reading that its object was to improve justice. If this is so, it is surely up to the Government, which wants to change a system which they themselves say works very well, to prove that a change is necessary. Yet the Government have had to fall back on double negatives, which I always suspect. They say there is no reason why the change should be for the worse. The Attorney General said in Committee:
      "my noble friend the Lord Chancellor has readily agreed that the City magistrates maintain a high standard—and I concur with that view—but he does not accept that there is anything inherent in the present system which makes it better than that operating in the rest c f the country … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 2nd April, 1968; c. 35.]
      but it is better, in the only respect which can be proved, namely, in the matter of statistics; there have been only six successful appeals out of 19,000 cases in the last year for which figures are available. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said very rightly that it is never an argument not to alter something because it works well. One should always approach institutions with a view to making them work even better. But is it practicable to alter a system which works well, in the hope of improving on a record of six successful appeals out of 19,000 cases? It is also a cheaper system than what is proposed.
      One of the arguments advanced, which this Amendment seeks to rebut, is that of uniformity. I regard uniformity as a detestable argument.
      It is the negation of all improvement. All human advance depends on non-uniform people, people who depart from uniformity. However we cannot attain uniformity. For example, Scotland, as usual, is in a special and peculiar position. The ex officio justices there are not to be abolished. It is true we may be able to thrust uniformity on the City justices but we cannot make the City cases uniform. It is misleading to compare the City of London with Newport. Of course the run-of-the-mill cases will appear the same, statistically, but if one
      1426
      examines them case by Case, there will be very serious divergencies which make the presence on the Bench of people with the qualifications of aldermen very advantageous.
      Nor is it sensible to treat all ex officio justices throughout the country uniformly, because City justices are not the same as other ex officio justices. They do not serve for short periods, and they are industrious and well trained. It is much more important, not that the City justices should be uniform with other justices, but that they should be suited to the cases with which they have to deal, as the aldermen are. The Attorney-, General said on the Second Reading:
      "Some anomalies undoubtedly exist. There cannot be total unanimity in our administration of justice, which is the product of a long historical process and practices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol 757, c. 286.]
      One cannot put it better than that. Uniformity is therefore both undesirable and unattainable.
      The second argument was that the Bench should be drawn from different sections of the local population. The Attorney-General mentioned wage earners, which was a curious concept in relation to the City. I think that he doubted whether any alderman had started as a wage earner.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): No, I doubted whether he was a wage earner when appointed an alderman.
      Mr. Smith: I do not know whether we have to draw the old-fashioned distinction between wages and salaries. I am certain that practically every alderman must have set out as a salary earner and that very many of them still are. I do not believe in this ever-more fashionable division of the population into more and more classes, categories and sections, All people, particularly when it comes to judging their fellow men, are united or divided by countless threads which have nothing to do with their purchasing power, or the way in which they live. Every man is an individual with an identity of his own, and aldermen are just as representative of all sections of the City when it comes to trying cases as anyone else. What is more important is that people should have confidence in them. Confidence can only be measured by the

      1427
      number of appeals from their decisions, and this is extremely low.
      To treat City Justices like all other ex officio justices is simply prejudice. I do not say it is prejudice against the City, or even political prejudice. But for once can we not be practical about this? The system in the City works extremely well and there are a great many things in the country at the moment which do not work well to which we might better turn our attention. I do not argue that the system ought to work well, nor as to why it works well: but it does. Can we not therefore have the good sense to accept the Amendment and leave the system alone?
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Whitaker: I shall be very brief. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) deployed their arguments with their customary elegance; but I would submit to the House that they founded them on a total fallacy in that they failed to adduce that there is any nexus whatsoever between the criterion for being an alderman in the City of London and the qualifications for being a justice of the peace. This is as illogical and indefensible as if every Member of this House hereupon constituted himself a judge.
      The provisions of this Bill are in no way unfair to those aldermen who are fitted to be magistrates. They are not excluded from consideration for appointment as justices of the peace, and it would be totally unfair that they should be. But it is an extraordinary and indefensible idea that because a person is fitted to be an alderman—and is elected upon a very strange and anomalous franchise—he should therefore be fitted to be a magistrate. For example, there must be many people in the City of London who can spare the time to be a magistrate but not the time to act as an alderman as well. Similarly, there must be others who are interested and qualified to act as justices of the peace in the City but who, for various—perhaps very good—reasons, would not touch politics with a barge pole. The two interests may in some cases overlap and, if it is not impolite to the present aldermen—and I have no wish to be so—it has been said
      1428
      in the Committee that their experience could be useful in trying fraud cases. But surely it is less than just to the remaining inhabitants of the City of London to say they are either unable to provide a suitable bench of magistrates or to forbid them to do so.
      I would like to take the two examples which have been mentioned. If those who moved this Amendment could tell the House of a single example of a woman who ever has been a magistrate in the City of London, or who is one now, we might feel their arguments had slightly more logic. Why should juvenile court cases and domestic cases have to be sent a considerable distance purely because of this inadequacy of the present City magistrates bench? Why should the ratepayers of Tower Hamlets, an infinitely poorer part of London, have to pay the bill for cases emanating from the City of London because of the anomaly which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is seeking to defend? Why should witnesses have to travel a substantial distance to Bow Street or Tower Hamlets purely because of this historical accident?
      I believe that in many cases—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman who moved this Amendment will recognise the truth of this from his own experience—the presence of a female magistrate is of considerable value when there is a bench of justices sitting. Whether or not justice is done as well as possible at present in the City, there may be female defendants who feel that justice is not being seen to be done when they know it is impossible, as it is at present, for there to be any female magistrate before whom they can appear.
      Lastly, I would urge upon the House that it is an essential precept of our presently constituted form of magistracy that there should be a variety of occupations represented on the Bench—that there should be, as the Prayer Book says, "all sorts and conditions of men". As the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster will know, there is a variety of occupations in the City—including poorer people who reside there while richer businessmen are able to leave after their day's work and go to their larger houses in the suburbs or elsewhere in London.
      I would urge upon the learned Attorney-General that the selection for

      1429
      this representation of a variety of outlooks on the bench should not be made on a basis of party politics, which would be quite indefensible. I do not say this in any party spirit, but I think it is utterly wrong that the selection of magistrates in this country is made by an attempt to balance party representation, because this disenfranchises as regards magistrates' benches throughout the country—as they are at present disenfranchised in the City of London—those who belong to minority parties, or are robust enough to be independents—of which there are far too few in present-day politics—and people who for some very good reason do not wish to involve themselves in party politics. Many such people, because they do not spend their time on partisan politics, are eminently suited to be magistrates ipso facto.
      To conclude, I hope that there will be represented on the Bench, not just of the City of London but throughout the country, all manner and varieties of sex, occupation and outlook—provided of course they all qualify to a high enough standard to be justices of the peace.
      Sir David Renton: When the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Ben Whitaker) made his point about party politics not entering into re presentation on magistrates' benches, I felt a great deal of sympathy with him. I think it is right that in normal circumstances all sections of the community—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I may have been at fault because I think I ought to have interrupted the hon. Member at that point and indicated that on this Amendment we are dealing only with the City of London. I do not think that we should pursue the point of political representation on benches generally.
      Sir D. Renton: I respectfully agree, but as the hon. Gentleman had been allowed to make his point I could hardly resist the temptation to comment upon it, because I agree very much with him. However, I will not pursue it further.
      The other serious point, which is truly relevant to the argument, concerned the City of London not having its own juvenile court. There is a reform which perhaps the Government might like to introduce without doing what they are
      1430
      trying to do in this Bill. They could quite easily make that reform and not do what in my opinion is something which they should try to avoid at this stage.
      May I say that I have had the unusual experience of being at the receiving end of some of the work of the City of London Justices Court. I must make it plain that the reason is that for some 15 months ending last December I sat from time to time as a commissioner at the Old Bailey. I believe I am the only Member of Parliament ever to have done so. I do not complain that the Government decided that I was an anomaly in that capacity because I was a Member of this House—I hope for no other reason. Just before Christmas that anomaly was removed by adding commissioners of the Central Criminal Court to the Schedule in the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I do not complain of that at all: on the contrary, I ought to express my gratitude for having been allowed to sit as a commissioner for those 15 months for it enabled me to witness from the inside the excellence of the administrative arrangements for handling the vast mass of work at the Old Bailey, much of which originates in the City of London Justices Court, which is presided over by the Lord Mayor and on which he and the 26 aldermen are magistrates.
      From that personal experience I can testify to the exceedingly high quality of that important part of the work of the City Justices Court which consists in committing cases for trial at the Old Bailey. Indeed, although I tried a number of cases committed by the City Justices, some of them fairly complicated, I do not recollect a single irregularity in any of the committal proceedings with which I had to deal. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom said, 'the City of London renders a vital and highly important service by making itself responsible for the administration and maintenance of the Central Criminal Court, which is, by Act of Parliament, the criminal division of the High Court. In pointing to the great service performed by the City Justices Court, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the low cost of it to the Exchequer. The same is true of the work done at the Central Criminal Court, at low cost to the Exchequer, but at quite

      1431
      considerable cost to the City, which it does not grudge.
      It is worth mentioning that the City Corporation has started on a programme of rebuilding the Central Criminal Court at a cost of £1—million. The cost to the City last year was £185,000. This financial year it will be nearly £500,000. When all 18 courts are built, the cost will be over £600,000 a year to the City. Surely it is a poor reward to the City for performing this great service for the State that the Lord Mayor and aldermen should be stripped of their authority as magistrates.
      One wonders why the Government have tried to impose their will in this way. The argument of logic is so flimsy that it does not stand up to examination. The removal of anomalies is sometimes justified, but to make that so the anomaly must be a bad one which does not work. If the Bill removes an anomaly, which for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster I somewhat doubt, it is an anomaly which works well.
      I fear that this change is perhaps being made for the worst of reasons. It is being made because the Government do not understand and, therefore, do not respect and sympathise with one of our established institutions, however spendidly it may work. Change for the sake of Socialism is sheer vanity and is not good enough, and I hope that the Attorney-General does not agree with it. Today he has a good opportunity to show that he does not believe in change merely for the sake of change or for the sake of Socialism.
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am entirely in favour of anomalies. When anomalies work, and when no serious criticism can be made of them, why should they not exist? All my time as a junior member of the Bar was spent on the Wales and Chester circuit. I have always been devoted to that circuit, like the Attorney-General. Yet, in theory, one can say that the circuit system is an anomaly. The justification for it is that it works well, and those with experience of it are devoted to it.
      1432
      In a country like ours, which has a long history, there are bound to be thousands of anomalies. How dull and uninteresting our life would be if they did not exist. Take the law itself. The only argument against the City of London retaining its peculiar and unique system of administration of summary justice is that it is an anomaly. On Second Reading, the Attorney-General paid tribute to the standard of the administration of justice in the City, which he said was high.
      5.15 p.m.
      Take the position of the Lord Chancellor, the man who is initiating this change. Is there a more anomalous position in this country than that of the Lord Chancellor? We have an independent Judiciary, yet who is the head of it? The head is the Lord Chancellor, who is the Government Leader in the House of Lords. He sits on the Woolsack in the position of Speaker. If the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite are right, what justification is there for the position of the Lord Chancellor? The justification is that the system works well and no one has any serious criticism of it. It has been tested by years of experience. Therefore, even though it is anomalous, we should have it, because it works well.
      Cannot exactly the same argument be advanced about the administration of justice in the City of London? I have no connections whatever with the City. I have no particular interest in it, save in the fact that the general reputation of the administration of summary justice in the City is high. Not only the present Lord Chief Justice, but his predecessor, Lord Goddard, paid great tribute to the standard of the administration of summary justice in the City. There are so many things in this country which do not work and which are costly that to concentrate time on abolishing something which works well and against which no practical criticism can be levelled is the height of stupidity.
      Sir Lionel Heald: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that an even more startling anomaly than the Lord Chancellor is the Law Officers of the Crown, who are responsible for the most important tasks in administering justice? That does not prevent them

      1433
      from being politicians and members of the Government.
      Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I will not encourage him to reminisce, but I am sure that what he says is absolutely right.
      There is a general revolt in this country against the process of trying to eliminate all anomalies, even though they work. In my own country of Wales and in Scotland there is a great revolt against the attempt from the centre to insist on uniformity in everything. I do not think that anyone in Newport, which has been given as an example, would argue that it was comparable with the City of London. The City of London is in a unique position. We are a commercial country. The centre of our commerce is the City of London. It is unique in the sense that people who work there during the day do not generally spend their nights there—at least not, to any good purpose. As the system has worked well and costs the country nothing, why should it not be allowed to continue?
      I should have thought that the onus of proof in this matter was entirely on the Government. When a system works well, and when, apart from theoretical criticism, no one can point to any practical criticisms of it, is there not a very heavy onus on the Government to show that it is necessary in the interests of the country for a change to be made? Does anyone really think that ex officio magistrates in other parts of the country will complain and say, "They have alowed ex officio magistrates in the City of London to remain"? They will not do so because they all acknowledge that the system in the City of London is different and that those who sit on the bench there have had an adequate training and very often deal with cases which, to some extent, are different from cases heard in other parts of the country.
      The real test is: does the system work? If it does, why change it at very considerable expense to the Government? Surely vie are sick and tired of the argument that it will not cost very much. The sum total of everything which does not cost very much is very great indeed.
      The sole issue throughout the debate, to misquote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, is: have the Government put
      1434
      forward any justification for the sacrifice of this system on the altar of uniformity? No such justification has been given and the Government at this stage should accept these Amendments.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity at this late stage to be able to speak in support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) and to make this last appeal to the right hon. and learned Attorney General to reconsider the attitude of the Government to this matter. I did not have the advantage of being present on Second Reading, but I would not like this Measure to go through the House without raising my voice against it.
      A country must be rich indeed in money and in experienced and devoted judges ready to give their time freely to the service of community that can afford to do away with a system of justice in the centre of its capital city which, as everyone has acknowledged, has served the country well from time immemorial and is shown by all the statistics which have been quoted to be serving the country and the capital well to this very day. I will not go through the numerous statistics which were quoted on Second Reading, but the 1967 figures of over 19,000 cases tried by the justices in the City, with 20 appeals and only six allowed, speak for themselves.
      I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), which has been expressed by speaker after speaker, that what we are seeing here—and perhaps I may quote the learned Lord Chief Justice—is the sacrifice of this system, whereby the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City give their services freely, upon the altar of consistency. In an ancient country like ours it is right and proper that we should enjoy the fruits of centuries of experience enshrined in ancient institutions. It is right that we should examine those institutions with the years that pass to see whether they fit the needs of modern times.
      The Royal Commission of 1948, the present Lord Chief Justice, his predecessor in office, and everyone who has spoken about the services of the aldermen of the City of London as justices have paid tribute to the fact that this is a

      1435
      system which works. Why, therefore, is it to be scrapped and thrown overboard and to have put in its place a new and more costly system in which three justices will have to sit where one sits now, where more court room will be needed, and where the authorities responsible will probably have to go outside the City to find the people to sit? I venture to express the view that the logical result will be that we shall see in the City the same system of Metropolitan magistrates which we have in the rest of London. It is a good system, but it will be infinitely more costly than the present service which is given by the City of London by its officers.
      I said that a country must be rich indeed that can afford to do this. Can we afford it? We cannot. We are seeking every possible means of reducing expenditure which falls upon the State in the provision of social and judicial services, but we are here throwing overboard a tried system and replacing it by a very much more costly system.
      Mr. W.O. J. Robinson: Following the argument about the replacement of the aldermen of the City of London, do I take it, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, that the aldermen of the City of London would either be unwilling or unable to serve as justices of the peace by name and not by office?
      Mr. Grieve: I am sure that the aldermen will be disposed to give their services as before. But why augment it? Why increase the cost? Why dismantle the whole edifice of justice in the City which has served the country so well?
      The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) a little while ago denigrated and sought to diminish the number of cases coming before the City justices which were of a peculiar kind; that is to say, financial, commercial cases. Although they may be few in number compared with the large number of driving cases and matters of that kind which come before the justices, nevertheless they are cases of great importance in the commercial and financial life of this country. It would be a great pity if justices experienced in trying that type of case were to be excluded, by a new system, from bring
      1436
      ing their experience to bear in trying those cases.
      The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) referred to the fact that some cases had to be dealt with outside the City of London. Is that such a hardship? Are the transport services in the City and County of London to be compared with those, when British Railways have had their way, in the fastnesses of Lincolnshire, the Highlands of Scotland or the centre of Wales? Bow Street Magistrates' Court is within yards of the boundary of the City of London. Is it a hardship for the few people who live in the City—and most of the cases coming before the City justices do not concern those who live there—to have their cases sent to Bow Street or even to juvenile courts a little further west? Arguments of that kind demonstrate the lengths to which those who seek to dismantle this system are forced to go to discharge the heavy burden of showing that this system should be dismantled. I do not think that anyone on this side thinks there is any justification for it.
      The hon. Member for Hampstead also said that there was no nexus between being an alderman and being a City magistrate. This is contrary to the facts, because the Court of Aldermen does not elect an alderman unless he has the capacity to serve the City and the country in a judicial capacity. It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that an alderman goes through a period of training. He has to attend court not three, as in the Lord Chancellor's scheme, but six times to see how it works. Having gone through his period of training he then sits consistently for very many years acquiring greater judicial experience, knowledge and expertise than perhaps any other Justice of the Peace in the country.
      We cannot afford, anomalous as it may seem to those who would reduce the whole country to a common pattern, to dismantle our ancient institutions. I think it was Burke who said that those who seek to undo that which time has justified should look very hard at what they have in mind to see whether there is any justification for it. I submit there is no justification whatever for this change. Even at this last moment I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will see the force of all that has been said and will accede to these Amendments.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ian Percival: I should like to say a few words about one aspect of the administration of justice to which insufficient attention has been directed, and that is the element of confidence. Speaking as one with some years' experience, I am inclined to think that if anybody were to ask me, "What do you think is the most important thing about a court of justice?" my answer would be that it should enjoy the confidence of the persons over whom it exercises authority, and whom it serves by administering justice.
      It is not very important how the confidence is obtained. I think that nobody will ever enjoy confidence without deserving it, because our fellow countrymen tire very astute, and their judgment is good. I do not think that it serves any purpose to ask how we can obtain confidence. Confidence is either reposed in an individual, or a court, or anybody else, or it is not.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) is not here, because he rather put to us who take the view that I am advancing that it is for us to justify what we say. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I think that when people wish to change something which, by common consent, works, the onus is on them. Let me, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's challenge. The justification for leaving these courts alone is that they enjoy the full confidence of the persons to whom they administer justice. There is nothing more that we can demand of a system, or of anybody in the system, there is nothing more that we can hope to receive from anybody who is any part of the system, than that he has the complete confidence of the persons whom he has to try.
      I think that it is taking a grave risk in changing the system, when one has that most priceless asset in the administration of justice, without any reason to assume, and certainly no reason in logic to deduce, that the new system will enjoy greater confidence. Unless one can presuppose that, all that one is doing is taking a risk of lessening confidence.
      I practised in the magistrates court some years ago, and I have the greatest respect for the vast majority of those who do this voluntary service, but it cannot be denied by anybody who has practised
      1438
      in these courts that the most distressing feature is that on occasions, probably due to inexperience, possibly due simply to a lack of the necessary capability, that confidence in the court suffers. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W.O. J. Robinson) shakes his head. I do not think that he is entitled to do so. I am not saying that this is common. I am not saying that this is the rule, rather than the exception. I am saying that it is folly to shut one's eyes to the fact that this can, and does, happen, albeit in a small proportion of cases. I do not care how small it is. When it does happen, it is very sad, because the moment people lose confidence in the system for the administration of justice, never mind in how few cases, or in how small a respect, that is a loss to the country.
      Mr. W.O. J. Robinson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that that absence of confidence at no time, and in no case, has existed in the City of London courts?
      Mr. Percival: Yes. I am speaking from my own experience, and based on what I have heard in this debate. I do not say that there may not have been the odd case which I have not either suffered personally or come across, but I think I am justified in making my point when everyone who has spoken during the debates on the Bill has praised the efficiency of these courts. On all the evidence available, these courts enjoy a high degree of confidence. This is a priceless asset in the administration of justice, and we should not risk tampering with it unless we have some good reason for supposing that what we are going to do will be an improvement.
      I end by echoing something which has been said by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it is so important that it bears saying again. I think that many of us are in danger of equating change and reform. To me, reform means improvement. There is a grave risk in saying that we must bring about the maximum number of reforms that we can, that we must chalk up a great list of them, and assuming that every time we change something that is reform.
      I echo the warning which has been sounded throughout this debate by so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

      1439
      Let us not fall into the error of equating change with reform. Before we change anything, let us make certain that what we are putting in its place is an improvement. It is because, without any spirit of rancour, and without any party political spirit, that I remain unconvinced, having studied almost everything that has been said during the passage of the Bill, that the change proposed is an improvement, that I shall take the opportunity to vote in support of the Amendment, unless, even at this late hour, the Attorney-General is persuaded by what has been said from this side of the House.
      Mr. W.O. J. Robinson: I intervene only briefly to explain and extend my intervention on the question of confidence. I have no experience of the City of London Bench, and I would not hesitate to accept that it has the respect of the people, but I think that when the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) was talking about confidence in the court he was judging and examining it from the point of view of the confidence shown by members of the legal profession.
      I have regard to the confidence which a litigant, or an ordinary applicant, or a poor defendant, has in the court, and it is because of this question of confidence that the proposed change commends itself to me. One essential ingredient in the confidence of members coming to the court is that they should believe that the justices on the bench will, by experience, training, and perhaps social status, be capable of understanding the difficulties in which they, as litigants, are placed.
      Mr. Percival: I welcome the opportunity of making it clear that when I am talking about confidence in the court, I am talking about the confidence of a lay client, not of the profession. This is what matters. These are the people who are at the receiving end of what is administered, and it is vital that the court should enjoy their confidence.
      Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because that intervention strengthens my approach to the problem. I believe that it is imperative that the lay client should have confidence not only in the manner in which justice is administered—and one often has people who are discontented—but that
      1440
      the people on the bench understand his situation. I have sat as a magistrate on a number of occasions, and I have often felt that there was resentment by the person appearing in the court that his situation was not fully understood.
      With respect to the aldermen of the City of London, I think that people who appear before them, knowing them to be aldermen, knowing their status, may feel—perhaps wrongly—that the learned gentlemen on the Bench do not understand their problems and the reason why they committed acts which are perhaps inexplicable to the Bench. The argument which fortifies the Government's proposal more than anything else is that by enabling a bench to be composed of men and women from all strata of society the court would inspire much more of the confidence which the hon. and learned Member for Southport regarded as essential. He could hardly have posed a more effective reason for passing the Bill in its present form.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: No one can say that the lawyers have not done a very heavy stint in the House this week. They have probably worked harder than any other section in advance of the Recess and I thought it desirable that a layman on this side should also speak. Also, the City of London, which is a very tiny city, needs some support from the representative of the smallest county. I had a battle in this House on behalf of the traditions of my county, and I am glad that it was against the previous Government, since, despite the right hon. and learned Gentleman's benign smile, if it had been against this Government, I should have been unlikely to win it.
      At least, when we were in Government, we recognised that something which was anomalous and difficult could nevertheless be retained, almost because it was anomalous and difficult. A case could be made for changing something to make it conform, but the country now wants more of the non-conformist attitude. If the Attorney-General recognised that mood, he would accept the case of the City that its aldermen should remain justices, purely on the basis of tradition, of something which has gone on for many years. It just happens to work.

      1441
      The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W.O. J. Robinson) said that justice needed to be seen to be done through the people on the bench being representative of those who appeared before them. I am not a justice, but I understand that they come to know peoples' problems by dealing with them over many years. They know from experience what people have to contend with and what makes them commit offences and they get a sympathyétique. I am sure that this must be so for the justices of the City.
      Many of these men could not serve as justices in their places of residence because they could not attend in the morning. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) said that there should be others sitting alongside the aldermen, but those who work in the City, 98 per cent. of them at least, live outside. They can serve as justices in Tower Hamlets or any other London borough in which they live, and no doubt many do.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned t he difficulties of the juvenile court. I was not on the Committee, so I apologise if I speak without knowledge, but it seems reasonable to have a juvenile court in the City of London. If so, would it not be possible to have additional magistrates to serve on it? This would enable women to serve.
      There are three factors which should be telling reasons for the Attorney-General to give final consideration to this matter. The first is tradition, which should not be discounted, The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not assume that workmen in Lincolnshire, Lancashire or Tower Hamlets are concerned about a selection of wage and salary earners among the aldermen. This is a mistake which has recently been blown sky-high politically and is therefore even more unlikely to be true of justice.
      5.45 p.m.
      The other two reasons should appeal to the Attorney-General because of the Government's present situation. First, the present system will undoubtedly keep down costs. Changing to a system which means building new courts and appointing new magistrates would raise the cost. On a Bill to make a modest increase in cost of £3 million, a Minister said that
      1442
      that was a paltry sum, to which I replied that it was the addition of so many so-called modest sums which led to great increases in expenditure and thus in taxation.
      The third reason is that the Government believe in productivity in every aspect of our national life and I understand from this debate that the City magistrates provide both quality and productivity in the performance of their duties—so why change the system? If the present system serves, preserves tradition and is less costly, the best thing which the Government can do is to retain it.
      Sir John Foster: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) said that the aldermen were chosen on the basis of politics. That is entirely wrong: politics do not come into it.
      The argument that the accused must feel that there is a wage earner among the justices is an argument against any stipendiaries or independent High Court judges. We know that there are strong arguments for stipendiaries and it has not been objected to them that they are not wage earners and have not been dockers, so there is a fallacy in this argument. If a court is to be efficient and to inspire confidence, that is all the more justification for the aldermen of the City, with their training and experience.
      They are halfway between lay justices and stipendiaries. A stipendiary is more efficient and a better tribunal to deal with a great press of cases, and lay justices are better suited to sparse populations. Because of the peculiar conditions in the City, its system is the best suited to the district.
      The Attorney-General: This is the third time that the arguments on both sides of the issues arising from these Amendments have been deployed with skill, persuasiveness and moderation. Today, there has been re-emphasis rather than novelty in the argument. I make no complaint about that: on the contrary, I would repeat what I said in Committee, that the Government's proposals are, of course, in no way inspired by any hostility to the City and even less by any prejudice, political or social.
      It is unthinkable, indeed incredible, that the status and reputation of the City, its Lord Mayor and aldermen will be

      1443
      whittled down one iota if they are deprived of the inherent and automatic right to be made justices of the peace when they are made aldermen. In practice, the aldermen will probably be made J.P.s under the new arrangements, and the proposals that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has made as to the manning of the advisory committee, which will be set up if Parliament approves these proposals, will ensure the close connection and community between the aldermen and the Bench of the City of London.
      I am prompted by the attractive speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) to mention that this is not the first Administration who have sought to alter ancient practices and institutions. I recollect that during the time of the previous Conservative Administration I was briefed by the Home Office to move for the abolition of the independent police force of the County of Rutland, an occasion I shall never forget. The town crier and the local population were crying out for the populace to muster to defend the quality and independence of their own police force. When I deployed the argument of the Home Office that larger police forces were necessary to meet the grave challenge of contemporary crime, counsel for Rutland pointed out that the only murder committed in the county occurred in 1789, which he describes as "a very turbulent year." I must not be prompted to reminisce, but the end of the story was that the police force of Rutland was amalgamated with that of the County of Leicester, and, as far as I know, the police there have lived happily ever after.
      Sir D. Renton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that was done by "the" previous Administration. In fact, it was done by "a" previous Administration—and it was a Socialist one.
      The Attorney-General: I do not think so. I recollect—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue that matter now. We are dealing with the City of London.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that we were dealing with the City of
      1444
      London. Hon. Members cannot, on this Amendment, pursue reminiscences about the County of Rutland.
      Mr. Lewis: I was not in the House on that occasion.
      The Attorney-General: I accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it may be that I should accept the correction of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) as well.
      While I know how strongly the City feels about losing the special arrangements for its Bench, those arrangements should, in my submission, be changed. The principal object of this part of the Bill is to improve the system by which persons become J.P.s in England and Wales. Most of the Bill's provisions are based on the principle that magistrates' courts should generally be composed of lay J.P.s who are men and women of integrity and intelligence, drawn, so far as is practicable, from all sections of the community and who have been specially selected to be J.P.s.
      I have emphasised that they are men and women because the House may be interested to know that there are now about 5,200 women out of the total of about 16,300 justices on the active list in England and Wales. It is now generally accepted that women magistrates play a valuable part in the administration of justice.
      Another principle which underlies the Bill is that a case coming before lay justices should not be tried by a justice, however experienced, sitting alone. It is because the arrangements in the City of London conflict with these principles, which are basic to the administration of justice in magisterial courts, that the Government have thought it right to apply the decision to abolish ex officio justices not only to the chairmen of local authorities throughout the country but also to the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London.
      The House has generally accepted that the fact that a man is appointed mayor should not be a ground for entitling him to administer justice in the magistrates' court. The principle which underlies that argument applies with a good deal of force to the arrangements for the City of London—although not, of course, with

      1445
      the same force because of special factors, to which I shall come.
      The aldermanic courts of the City of London are quite unique in that not only are the justices who man them sitting by virtue of their election to high civic office, but because they sit alone, whereas current opinion I think favours magisterial benches of three lay magistrates as the best type of lay bench. The City benches are also unique because there is not a woman among them. Nor is there any reasonable prospect that there will be a woman among them in the near future.
      We had occasion in Committee to refer to the charming lady, the "rare bird", who is the only woman Common Councillor, and it may be that she will fly to the aldermanic bench in due course. It has not happened yet and there has never been a woman alderman in the City of London. For that reason women who appear before that court are not likely to have the confidence of the presence of a woman on the bench, and the bench is deprived of the contribution that women can make in that capacity.
      The argument has ranged on both sides of the House about whether the alder-manic bench meets the requirement of representing different sections of the local population of the City of London. I submit that it does not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) referred to what I think has been the aim of successive Lord Chancellors; to try to bring about, in the manning of magisterial benches, representation on them of all manners, sorts and conditions of people. This has not happened in respect of the City Bench and it cannot happen by virtue of the fact that it is manned exclusively by those who are elected and selected as aldermen. The arrangements for the City of London therefore conflict fundamentally with principles which, I submit, are the proper principles to apply in the manning of magisterial benches.
      I have conceded—I do so completely—that the quality of the work of the City justices has been high. I readily acknowledge the value of the services that they have rendered. However, I repeat the view expressed by the Lord Chancellor; that there is nothing inherent in the present system in the City which makes it better than that operating in the rest of the country, particularly since the general require-
      1446
      ment now exists that a new magistrate must undergo a term of training before he or she undertakes magisterial duties. There are no real grounds for thinking that the quality of City justice will deteriorate if the existing City system is replaced by one similar to that followed everywhere else in England and Wales.
      6.0 p.m.
      It has been suggested in the debate that there is something peculiar, something special, about the character of crime in the City of London which calls for an exceptional kind of lay bench. I do not accept that and I do not think the facts support that contention. The pattern of crime in the City does not differ substantially from that in other urban areas. There are fewer burglaries, there are fewer housebreakers, but there are still a very large number of ordinary criminal offences ranging—surprisingly enough—from rape, no doubt a product of nocturnal habits which one hon. Member mentioned, all the way down to a mass of motoring and parking offences.
      I am particularly happy to see that crime in the City does not reflect a specially disproportionate volume of fraud cases. If it did, it may well be that the reputation of the City in financial matters would indeed suffer. I read with interest and care a pamphlet which the City authorities put out on this Bill, which deals with the point I am now considering. It says:
      "while much of the daily business of the courts"—
      of the City—
      "resembles that of other courts of justices of the peace, some cases are of considerable magnitude and complexity. Many cases arise directly from business of the City as the centre of the nation's financial life".
      It says that in these circumstances the training and experience of the City aldermen show to particular advantage. Four illustrations are given. R. v. Grunwald and others in 1960, which related to a building society conspiracy involving £3,500,000, which lasted for 14 days; R. v. Moyland and Others, 26 days; R. v. Pim, Scarsfield and York, which lasted for 13 days in 1965; and a Purchase Tax case which took 12 days. All four were all committal proceedings. The time that was taken upon them was in relation to committal proceedings. Since the recent changes we have made in the

      1447
      Criminal Justice Act in committal proceedings in regard to the use of written statements and other time-saving methods, committal proceedings should certainly be far shorter hereafter than they were during the hearing of those cases.
      It would still be open, if this Bill becomes law, for a single justice in the City to continue to sit alone to deal with committal proceedings. I devoutly hope that aldermen will still be sitting on the aldermanic bench and the aldermen with particular skill in the field of accounts will obviously be invited—and I hope will accept the invitation—to deal with committal proceedings in that sort of case when the new arrangements come into force.
      What I find very doubtful is whether fraud cases of length and great complexity will be tried in the City by single justices. Under Section 19 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, justices are enabled to try certain indictable offences summarily, but, before they do so, under Section 19(2) they must satisfy themselves not only that the punishment which they have power to inflict will be adequate—and they are limited to six months—but also
      "that the circumstances do not make the offence one of serious character and do not for other reasons require trial on indictment."
      I should have thought that that would prevent justices in the City trying cases lasting for two or three weeks, as distinct from dealing with committal proceedings.
      I readily appreciate that there will be a benefit to have in the courts of the City the expertise of aldermen who are versed in business matters and can follow complex accounts in committal proceedings, but the particular and very special
      arrangements which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has proposed for the manning of the Advisory Committee which will nominate the future justices of the peace for the City, will maintain the links between appointment as an alderman and the holding of office as a magistrate. Accordingly, the new arrangements will ensure the continuance of the services and skills of aldermen, while giving to the City of London courts the application of principles which are appropriate for this part of this century and which fall into line with the principles which are applied to magisterial courts elsewhere in England and Wales.
      Accordingly, I must advise the House to reject these Amendments.
      Sir P. Rawlinson: For the second time within 48 hours, having listened to the Attorney-General, I am not surprised to hear what he said, however much I deeply regret it. Once again we have not heard any reason why on the merits this change should be made. Instead, at increased cost we are to have an increased number of people doing a job, and not doing the job so well. At a time when we should be doing everything possible to rationalise and make sensible all our efforts in the country, the stubbornness of the Government will be noted and not forgotten. They will have done a disservice to themselves by adopting their attitude, a disservice I do not care much about, but they will also be doing a disservice to the pursuing of criminal justice, which I do care about. For these reasons I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to press the Amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 163.

      Division No. 119.]

      AYES

      [6.8 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Boardman, Tom

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Body, Richard

      Clegg, Walter

      Astor, John

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Cooke, Robert

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

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Braine, Bernard

      Corfield, F. V.

      Batsford, Brian

      Brewis, John

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

      Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

      Bell, Ronald

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Crouch, David

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Bessell, Peter

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

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Biffen, John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Campbell, Gordon

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

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Eden, Sir John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Royle, Anthony

      Elliot, Cant. Walter (Carshalton)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Russell, Sir Ronald

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

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Emery, Peter

      Lubbock, Eric

      Sharples, Richard

      Errington, Sir Eric

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Silvester, Frederick

      Eyre, Reginald

      MacArthur, Ian

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Foster, Sir John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Speed, Keith

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stainton, Keith

      Glyn, Sir Richard

      Maddan, Martin

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maginnis, John E.

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

      Cower, Raymond

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Grant, Anthony

      Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn, Jeremy

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Tilney, John

      Grieve, Percy

      Monro, Hector

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Gurden, Harold

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

      Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

      Walters, Dennis

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Neave, Airey

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Nott, John

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Hill, J. E, B.

      Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

      Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

      Holland, Philip

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Hordern, Peter

      Pardoe, John

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hunt, John

      Peel, John

      Wright, Esmond

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Percival, Ian

      Wylie, N. R.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Younger, Hn. George

      Jopling, Michael

      Pym, Francis

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Mr. Jasper More and

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Timothy Kitson.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      NOES

      Archer, Peter

      Fernyhough, E.

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Ford, Ben

      Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Forrester, John

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Fowler, Gerry

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Bishop, E. S.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Garrett, W. E.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Booth, Albert

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      McBride, Neil

      Bradley, Tom

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Maccoll, James

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Gregory, Arnold

      MacDermot, Niall,

      Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Macdonald, A. H,

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

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)

      Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hamling, William

      Madennan, Robert

      Buchan, Norman

      Harper, Joseph

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Carmichael, Neil

      Haseldine, Norman

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Coe, Denis

      Hazell, Bert

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Manuel, Archie

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Henig, Stanley

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hooley, Frank

      Mendelson, J, J,

      Dalyell, Tam

      Horner, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Milne, Edward (Bryth)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Howie, W.

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Moyle, Roland

      Delargy, Hugh

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Newens, Stan

      Dempsey, James

      Hunter, Adam

      Oakes, Gordon

      Dewar, Donald

      Hynd, John

      O'Malley, Brian

      Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

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

      Orbach, Maurice

      Dickens, James

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Orme, Stanley

      Doig, Peter

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oswald, Thomas

      Driberg, Tom

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Dunn, James A.

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

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

      Park, Trevor

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

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Eadie, Alex

      Kelley, Richard

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Ellis, John

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      English, Michael

      Lawson, George

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Ennals, David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Rees, Merlyn

      Reynolds, G. W.

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Whitaker, Ben

      Richard, Ivor

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

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

      Small, William

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Snow, Julian

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Swingler, Stephen

      Woof, Robert

      Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Ryan, John

      Varley, Eric C.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Sheldon, Robert

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

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

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

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

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Clause 5.

      JUSTICES' CLERKS.
      Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 6, line 14, at end insert:
      'and that the clerk may, at any time when he thinks he should do so, bring any such question to the attention of the justices or justice'.
      I shall be exceedingly brief in moving the Amendment in the hope that, on the one hand, I shall earn the gratitude of my Scottish colleagues and, on the other hand, that it may be favourably received by my right hon. and learned Friend.
      Clause 5(3) is a declaratory Clause. It does not change the law in any way, but the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association felt that there should be some statutory definition of the rôle in the court of the justices' clerk. I was fortunate enough upstairs, when the Bill was considered in Committee, to have subsection (3) added to the Bill for this purpose. There was some doubt in my mind, which I expressed in the Committee upstairs, whether my own subsection went far enough to cover a clerk giving advice to his justices at any time, and not merely at their request, as the words say.
      The Amendment clarifies beyond any doubt that it is the duty, the responsibility and the right of a justices' clerk to advise his justices on a point of law at any time he thinks he should do so and he can bring it to their attention.
      The Attorney-General: I am happy to advise the House to accept the Amendment. It does no more than restate what is in a Practice Direction which was given by Lord Goddard when he was Lord Chief Justice in 1953. On that occasion, he said:
      "It would be proper for the clerk himself to call the Justices' attention to the fact that a question of law does or may arise if they do not appear to be already aware of it. It would then be for them to consider whether they wanted his further advice on that question."
      The Amendment establishes that proposition beyond a peradventure, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 2.

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CITY OF LONDON AND LOCAL ACT STIPENDIARIES.
      The Attorney-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 13, line 22, leave out from 'shall' to 'be' in line 23.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 9.
      The Attorney-General: The purpose of these two Amendments is to simplify and clarify the provisions relating to the superannuation arrangements for the staff of the Local Act Stipendiary Magistrates in South Staffordshire and the Staffordshire Potteries. They deal with somewhat complex legal matters. Unless the House desires me particularly to explain them, I do not think that it is necessary. Their purpose is clear and desirable.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 9, in page 13, line 24, leave out from ' committee ' to end of line 26 and insert:
      'but this shall not affect the operation of section 29 of that Act (payment of transfer values) '.—[Mr. Attorney-General.]
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time. [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
      Sir Barnett Janner rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This Motion is not debatable.
      Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  6.24 p m.
  Mr. Speaker: As usual, I have posted my selection of Amendments. We come first to Amendment No. 1.

  SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Clause 1.

      DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR SEWERAGE OF THEIR AREA.
      Mr. George Willis: 1 beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 17, after ' points ', insert ' in relation to the curtilage'.
      We had a long debate in Committee on the very sweeping character of the powers contained in Clause 1. In particular, a point was raised about the lack of definition and the consequent doubts as to the great expenditures which might be placed upon local authorities. We cannot cover all that again but, since then, I have received further representations on the Clause relating to the lack of definition in subsection (2). Perhaps I might read an extract from them:
      "Clause 1 (2) requires local authorities to tike sewers to points where owners of premises can connect their drains to them at reasonable cost to themselves. This replaces the former requirement (Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, Section 120) for owners to connect to sewers where these were within 100 yards of the premises. This is undoubtedly an improvement but I feel suffers from lack of definition and it would be better to specify a distance to the curtilage of a building. I suggest specifying the distance to the curtilage rather than to the building itself (as in the Public Health Act, 1936, Section 37, applicable to England and Wales) since the siting of a binding within a feu is a matter often determined by the building owner without reference to the local authority."
      The representations go on to suggest that, if it was to the curtilage, the distance could be reduced from the figure o' 100 feet referred to in the English Act to 50 feet.
      I do not want to argue about what the distance should be. All that I suggest is that, if local authorities took their public sewers to such point or points in relation to the curtilage of the building, it would be preferable to the way in which the subsection is worded at
      1454
      present. It would be more specific, especially as the representations point out that since the siting of a building within a feu is a matter often determined by the building owner without reference to the local authority, the distance could be quite considerable and a local authority could be called upon to incur considerable expenditure in bringing a sewer within a reasonable distance, whatever "reasonable" might mean, of the building rather than to the curtilage of the building. In this way, a local authority would have a much clearer idea of what the Government envisage in the Clause. At the same time, local authorities would be safeguarded against excessive expenditures.
      I do not wish to carry on the debate unduly, but when my hon. Friend comes to reply, I think that he ought to give us an indication of whether the subsection means that public sewers shall be taken to such point or points in relation to the building itself so as to enable the owners of premises to be served to connect their drains or private sewers at reasonable cost, or whether the Government have in mind that public sewers should be taken to a point at a reasonable distance from the curtilage.
      There is a big distinction here, and it is one which might involve local authorities in a fair amount of expenditure. It would be an improvement if something could be put into the subsection along the lines of the Amendment to make the point clear when the Bill goes to another place.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): In the first place, I am not altogether clear that the words suggested by my right hon. Friend will of themselves bring about the point that he wants to make clear.
      Local authorities are already required to take public sewers to a point or points at which the owner of premises will be able to connect his drain at reasonable cost to himself. The test of reciprocal reasonable cost, embodied in subsections (2) and (3), will determine the point to which the sewer must be taken. It might be the boundary of the curtilage of the premises. It might be some distance outside the boundary. In exceptional circumstances, it might even be inside the boundary of the curtilage.
      I am not sure that the words chosen, "in relation to the curtilage" achieve the

      1455
      desired effect. Even if they do, I am not sure that I can accept the intention of the Amendment. In Committee, we discussed the reasons for drafting the Clause as we have and we rejected attempts to limit or define more closely the duty of local authorities under the Clause. The test of practicability at reasonable cost is the only one which fits the great variety of circumstances likely to be encountered by local authorities. In this respect it does not seem to me that it is an entirely feasible alternative and, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. James Dempsey: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument on "reasonable costs" I have yet to find, by and large, anybody willing to define what the word "reasonable" means in the sense of costs. The difficulty of interpretation has caused considerable difficulties to local authorities and increased rate burdens from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is perfectly practical and sound in his attitude in feeling that there should be some reference to the curtilage of the feu. It is all very well to say that the sewer shall be taken to a point which may be suitable for a private owner to connect, but in view of the speculative building that is taking place in some parts of the country, where a local authority is to be called on to take the sewer within reasonable proximity to a building, that could easily mean crossing a great distance over a feu. In fact, that is what is happening at the present time.
      In the case of the house of an agricultural worker the curtilage of the feu can be 100 yards away from the building, and simply because his building is situated in a very large tract of land this provision in this Clause could mean that in circumstances similar to those to which I have referred, a local authority could be compelled to carry public services such as sewers over long distances to bring them within close proximity to a building, with the consequence that a large amount of piping would have to be provided, installed and maintained at the expense of the ratepayers, for the benefit of people who may be well able to meet the cost themselves.
      I myself served for some years on the drainage committee of one of the largest
      1456
      counties in Scotland and I know what can be involved unless there is a clear declaration of intent that the services should be taken to within the curtilage of a particular area as compared with the factor of reasonable cost. I recognise the difficulty of my hon. Friend. No doubt, he has a brief which he has studied and he is convinced that this is a sensible attitude to adopt. But it is not as simple or as easy as that. It would be much better to define the situation in the words of the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East. In moving this Amendment he seeks to be precise. That is what is wrong with this Bill. There is not sufficient precision in order to protect local authorities and ratepayers, for "reasonable cost" is a very unwieldy term and one could drive a cart and horse through any interpretation of it. My hon. Friend should study some of the cases which have appeared in Scottish courts from time to time, when he would be shocked at our judges' decisions on interpretations of the word "reasonable".
      I take the view, therefore, that this would have been a much better Bill, and a sounder one from the point of view of reasoning, had my hon. Friend been able to incorporate in it the wording of my hon. Friend's Amendment which is more precise and which I believe, from my own experience, would assist in protecting local authorities against any inordinate requirement to provide services as a result of the present wording of the Bill.
      Mr. Willis: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has not been willing to look at this Amendment rather more favourably. I would ask him whether he would not give this a little more thought before it goes to another place; because, as I understand it, this is the first time in which a reference to distance has not been included—either a distance from a building or from a curtilage—and I had hoped that my hon. Friend would have been able to look at this again or have been willing to do so before it went to another place.
      Mr. Buchan: I understand the arguments that have been advanced and the reasons for them. The difficulty is that we are asked to provide precision. The trouble is that so many varying circumstances can exist that precision is not

      1457
      necessarily the quality we need here. We want the kind of situation in which varying circumstances can be dealt with in various ways and we believe that this is the best way of doing that, in association with the need to look at reasonable cost. This will not be laying upon local authorities a kind of emphasis out-with what is reasonable, because there is provision under subsection (4) for the Secretary of State, after consultation, with an aggrieved person and the local authority, to determine the question, and for the local authority to give effect to his determination.
      Mr. Willis: They vary as much as the curtilages.
      Mr. Buchan: But the variations of a Secretary of State will tend over a period of time to become more uniform, and his kind of decision will create uniformity, and, in the event, the kind of precision that hon. Members want.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 3.

      CONSTRUCTION ETC. OF PUBLIC SEWERS AND PUBLIC SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 31, after 'works', insert:
      'and of the right to object thereto'.
      Mr. Speaker: I propose that with Amendment No. 2 we take Amendments No. 3, No. 4, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'owner' to 'may' in line 34 and insert:
      'or occupier objects thereto, or attaches to their consent any terms or conditions to which the local authority object, and such objections or terms or conditions are not withdrawn, the local authority';
      No. 8, and No. 9, in page 3, line 2, leave out from beginning to ' may ' in line 10 and insert:
      'if within two months after the service of the notice the local authority on whom it was served object thereto, or attach thereto terms or conditions to which the first mentioned local authority object, and such objecttion or terms or conditions are not withdrawn, the first mentioned local authority'.
      Mr. Ross: These Amendments are to give effect to undertakings which we gave during the Committee stage to reconsider
      1458
      the procedure for giving notice and for objections where a local authority proposes to construct works which will form part of its sewerage system. This Amendment gives effect to a suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) during the Committee proceedings to provide that in giving notice to an owner or occupier of intending works, whether inside or outside their area, the local authority must draw attention to the right to object.
      The main Government Amendment is Amendment No. 3, at page 2, line 32. The effect is that where a local authority proposes to construct a sewer in or over any land—other than in a street, either inside or outside its area, the owner or occupier of the land will have an opportunity to object within two months, in which case the sheriff must decide whether or not the works are to proceed. If no objection is lodged, the local authority can start work at the end of the two months.
      This replaces the existing provisions of subsection (2) whereby the owner and occupier must each give a positive consent, without which the local authority cannot proceed except by order of the sheriff. The Amendment reduces the risk of undue delay without depriving the owner or occupier of his right of objection. This point was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) but it was supported from both sides of the Committee and has the support of the County Councils' Association.
      Amendment No. 8, at page 3, line 2, makes a corresponding alteration to the procedure in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 3, where the local authority proposes to execute works of sewerage outside its area and a neighbouring local authority has a right to object.
      Mr. N. R. Wylie: We are obliged to the Minister for promoting these Amendments which as he said, follow undertakings given in Committee. There is only one difference between our Amendments and the Minister's, and that is that the Minister's does not appear to take account of the possibility that, while an owner may not object to the proposal, he may annexe conditions to the consent to which the

      1459
      local authority may take an exception. This possibility is envisaged in subsection (2) where it is provided:
      "…and the occupier fail to give their consent, or attach to their consent any terms or conditions to which the local authority objects, the local authority may refer the matter …"
      This is not a matter which ought to take up a great deal of time, but, since the Minister is departing from those words and leaving aside the possibility of a conditional acceptance not acceptable to the local authority, we ought to have an explanation before we let the Government's Amendment through.
      Mr. Buchan: By leave of the House. This is the basic distinction between these two sets of Amendments. It seems unnecessary to include the requirement that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. As we propose to alter the Clause, it will provide adequate protection for the person or the local authority willing to consent on conditions which the first local authority finds unacceptable. It will be able to object. I have looked at this point, and it seems to be completely covered.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not need the leave of the House to speak again.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 32, leave out from 'owner' to 'may' in line 34 and insert:
      'or the occupier objects to the proposed works, and that objection is not withdrawn, the local authority shall not proceed to execute the works without consent aftermentioned but'.—[Mr. Ross.]
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 39, at end insert:
      (3) Section 349 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 (service of notices) shall apply to notices under subsection (2) above relating to land as it applies to notices relating to premises.
      When the Bill was in Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) suggested that subsection (2) of Clause 3 should empower the local authority, where the owner is unknown or cannot be found, after reasonable inquiry, to post notice of proposed works prominently on the land. We felt that to some extent this was already covered,
      1460
      but there is some doubt about the extent to which it might apply to land. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that in the context of Clause 3 the power extends to both land and premises.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 43, after shall ', insert:
      'in addition to any notice served under subsection (2) above'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we will also discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 43, after 'serve', insert 'a further'.
      Mr. Buchan: Again, the Government Amendment deals with a point raised in Committee. When a local authority proposes to undertake to construct a sewer, whether inside or outside its area, it must serve notice under Clause 3(2), on the owner and occupier of any affected premises. Under subsection (4) it must serve notice on the local authority for the area adjoining that upon which the works are to be executed. The Amendment makes it clear that this notice is additional to any notice served on owners and occupiers, and is not in substitution for such notice. This is already implicit in Clause 3, but it is as well to put the matter beyond doubt.
      Mr. Wylie: This is a very small matter, but I would have thought that as a matter of drafting Amendment 7 was preferable, if only because it cut down the number of words. The Government Amendment undoubtedly seeks to make clear that this is a notice additional to the one referred to earlier. It says:
      "… in addition to any notice served under subsection (2) above …"
      The same result can be obtained by simply inserting the two words "a further". For economy of wording and simplicity of expression our Amendment seems preferable. We are not disposed to oppose the Government Amendment if the view of the Minister is that it is essential.
      Mr. Buchan: It is essential. The difficulty is that the Opposition Amendment would not cover a situation where the works are to be undertaken in a street, while our Amendment does.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 3, line 2, leave out from beginning to ' may' in line 10 and insert:
      'if within two months after the service of the notice the local authority on whom it was served object to the proposed works, and that objection is not withdrawn, the first-mentioned authority shall not proceed to execute the works without consent aftermentioned but'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 32 after 'into', insert 'any of'.
      This is a small drafting Amendment. I hope that it commends itself to the Minister, but it is not one to which we attach any great significance.
      Mr. Buchan: I hope that the Opposition will withdraw this Amendment. I think it is unnecessary, although I see the paint about the fear that the Clause as drafted would require that all the sewers O' the first authority would have to be connected with all the sewers and works or the second authority. This is not so. It is quite clear as it stands. If this were to be accepted, we would have to change other things which would add further wards, and I know that the hon. and learned Member dislikes that.
      Mr. Wylie: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 5.

      AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'either authority' and insert 'those authorities'.
      Mr. Speaker: We can also take with this Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 36, after second 'the', insert 'joint'.
      Mr. Buchan: In Committee we undertook to consider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and also by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). They both suggested that under Clause 5(2) the
      1462
      Secretary of State could force a local authority into an agreement with another against its will. The intention as we explained at the time, is that the Secretary of State should arbitrate only on the conditions of an agreement, where the local authorities agree in principle that they wish to enter into one, but cannot agree on the actual conditions.
      We have examined this again in the light of the debate in Committee, and to make sure that there is no possibility of doubt, this Amendment would have the effect that the Secretary of State will arbitrate only on the application of both of the local authorities concerned, or all of them if there are more than two. This will ensure that the necessary measure of agreement must exist before he is asked to intervene and that one local authority cannot force another into an agreement.
      Mr. Wylie: This Amendment radically changes the whole provisions of subsection (2), and meets the criticisms made of it. As it stood, either authority could apply to the Secretary of State and the other authority was bound by that application, which seemed contrary to the whole spirit of the Clause. These words undoubtedly rectify that defect. The purpose of inserting the word "joint" before "application" is to make it perfectly clear—I will accept it is not strictly necessary as a matter of interpretation—that it is a joint application of two or more authorities where two or more authorities are involved. I would like to think that the Minister would be willing to accept this short addition to the Amendment.
      Mr. Buchan: The Amendment as we have it covers the point. The difficulty about providing for a joint application is that it would suggest that both authorities should sign the same piece of paper, and would thus be unduly restrictive.
      In any case, the Amendment is defective in that it would insert a reference to the "joint application of either authority" which, by its nature, is absurd. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment in favour of ours.
      Mr. Wylie: I am assuming that the Government Amendment would be in as well as ours, so that the wording would

      1463
      be "joint application of those authorities", not "of either authority".
      Mr. Buchan: It seems to me that the Government Amendment is correct and Amendment 11 brings in a restrictive aspect. My comment at the end was to explain why we could not substitute the Opposition's Amendment for the Government Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7.

      AGREEMENTS BETWEEN HIGHWAY AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
      Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment 13, with which I suggest that we take Amendments 14, 15 and 16.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 21, leave out 'question' and insert 'dispute '.
      It was argued in Committee that the Secretary of State, in deciding questions under subsection (3), should not be the judge in a dispute to which he is a party. It is not the intention that he should be able to settle such a dispute, and since the Committee stage we have again examined the drafting to ensure that this intention is given effect. I asserted most strongly that he would not be a party to any dispute in which he was involved. However, when we looked at the present wording it seemed possible that the Clause could have been read as empowering the Secretary of State in certain circumstances to rule upon a question where he is involved, for example, as the highway authority for trunk roads. In other words, he could consider that the other authority was acting unreasonably and that he was not. That was not our intention, and the Amendments put it beyond doubt that his powers of arbitration are restricted to disputes where he is not a party.
      Amendment 16 implements an undertaking given in Committee. Its effect is to require the Secretary of State, before deciding whether a local highway authority or a local authority is behaving unreasonably, to consult with the authorities concerned. This is in line with other provisions of the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 14, in page 4, line 21, after ' section ', insert:
      'to which the Secretary of State is not a party'.
      No. 15, in page 4, line 22, leave out from ' authority ' to 'are'.
      No. 16, in page 4, line 23, leave out ' whose ' and insert:
      'who, after consultation with the authorities concerned, shall determine the dispute, and his '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

    Clause 8.

      AGREEMENTS AS TO PROVISION OF SEWERS ETC. FOR NEW PREMISES.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 31 leave out 'him or' and insert 'that person or by'.
      This is a purely drafting Amendment which does not alter the meaning of the Clause but has the effect of putting in a phrase, "by that person or by them", which fits in much better with the surrounding context. As hon. Members were quick to point out, the word "him" might be over-restrictive, since "person", to which it refers back, could mean a corporate body.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.

      EMPTYING OF SEPTIC TANKS.
      Mr. Speaker: We come to Amendment No. 18, with which we shall consider the Government Amendment No. 21 and the following Opposition Amendments: Amendment 19, in page 5, line 10 leave out from 'may' to 'elect' in line 11.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 5, line 13, leave out from thereof ' to it ' in line 14 and insert
      'and when they so elect, and the Secretary of State approves'.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 10, leave out from 'may' to 'pass' in line 11.
      The Government Amendments are drafting Amendments which give effect to a Government undertaking in Committee. As the Clause is drafted, it gives the impression that local authorities cannot pass a resolution by which they elect to empty septic tanks without first obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State. The

      1465
      intention is, of course, that such a resolution, once passed, should be subject to the Secretary of State's approval, and I hope that the Amendments make this perfectly clear.
      Mr. Wylie: Our only criticism of the Amendment is that it does not go far enough. It is acceptable to us with that qualification. Amendment 19 and the consequential Amendment 20 seek to take out of the Clause a further provision telling a local authority what procedure to adopt. The Clause at present states:
      "A local authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, pass a resolution whereby they elect to empty all septic tanks serving premises …"
      The matter was raised in Committee. The Government have accepted the first criticism concerning the need to take out the Secretary of State, but they seem reluctant to take out the provision about passing a resolution. It is not for Parliament to tell local authorities what procedure to adopt when making a decision on this or any other matters. The words "pass a resolution" are quite unnecessary to the Clause. If our Amendment were made, the Clause would read:
      "A local authority may elect to empty all septic tanks …"
      That seems eminently sensible and the kind of thing the public would readily understand.
      Mr. Willis: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) should say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not go as far as he would wish. It seems to me that the Government Amendments go further than the hon. and learned Gentleman's, because they remove all reference to the Secretary of State, whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments would keep him in.
      Mr. Wylie: Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that when we are accepting one Government Amendment and adding to it it is unnecessary to rewrite the whole thing in a separate Amendment?
      Mr. Willis: I thought that this was some rather carping criticism by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am surprised at him, because he is usually much more magnanimous. Just because he has a majority of 64 he should not make
      1466
      these carping political criticisms. He is not proving worthy of himself this evening. He should say to my hon. Friend, "Thank you very much. We are most grateful for the changes and we welcome them."
      Mr. Buchan: I must say why we cannot accept the point of view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, though I hate to become involved in an inter-Edinburgh argument between my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought that in Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted that there was merit in having a specific reference to a resolution. That is the point of substance between us. It is true that the decision to empty septic tanks as a duty might extend to a fairly small area, but it could be a substantial departure in policy. I do not think that the procedure will be cumbersome. It is desirable that in taking a fairly important policy decision the local authority should be guided towards importing this degree of precision into its proceedings, particularly as it might be necessary to define the boundaries of the areas within which the service is to be provided. Therefore, we believe that "resolution" should remain in.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 21, in page 5, line 14, leave out' with consent as aforesaid ' and insert:
      'and approved by the Secretary of State '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

    Clause 12.

      RIGHTS OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS TO CONNECT WITH AND DRAIN INTO PUBLIC SEWERS ETC.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 2, to leave out 'shall' and to insert 'may'.
      7.0 p.m.
      This Amendment deals with a point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) which we undertook to consider. Under Clause 12(7) as drafted, a local authority would be obliged to undertake any work in a street which was necessary to enable a private sewer or

      1467
      drain to be connected to a public sewer or sewage treatment works. On consideration, it seems to us that there might be cases, for instance in private streets or lanes, where the local authority should not be obliged to undertake the work, and the Amendment therefore converts the obligation into a discretion. It would still seem inappropriate that the local authorities should allow private persons to break open public streets, but that will be a matter within the control of the local authorities themselves.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 14.

      DIRECTION BY LOCAL AUTHORITY AS TO MANNER OF CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 40, to leave out ' a person ' and to insert:
      'the owner of any premises'.
      This is a drafting Amendment. Throughout the Bill reference is made to the owner of premises in contexts such as this, and it is clearly desirable that Clause 14 should be consistent in this respect, particularly since it refers back to Clauses 12 and 13, which refer to the owner in the context of carrying out works.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 40, to leave out from 'drain' to 'authority' in line 41 and to insert:
      ' or sewer in respect of which notice has been given to the local authority by virtue of section 12(3) above or that subsection as applied by section 13 above, or sewage treatment works in respect of which notice has been given under subsection (2) below, the'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the three following Government Amendments, No. 26, No. 27 and No. 28.
      Mr. Buchan: These Amendments give effect to a Government undertaking in Committee to examine the drafting of Clause 14 with particular reference to the possibility of incorporating a requirement that the local authority should receive notice of works to which the Clause relates. The effect of Amendment
      1468
      No. 25 is to provide that the powers of a local authority under Clause 14—under which they may direct that sewers and so forth are to be constructed in a different manner—are to be limited in the first place to private sewers and drains which are proposed to be connected to the public sewerage system, and, secondly, to private sewage treatment works.
      These are the works in respect of which the local authority might wish to issue a direction under Clause 14, and this gets over the difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) in Committee, of having to give notice to the local authority of minor drains which could never form part of the public system. In the case of sewage treatment works, notice is required by the proposed new subsection (2) which Amendment No. 27 provides.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 26, in page 7, line 44 after ' provide ', insert:
      'within 28 days of the receipt by them of the notice'.
      No. 27, in page 7, line 47 at end insert:
      (2) Where the owner of any premises proposes to construct sewage treatment works to serve those premises he shall give notice of his proposals to the local authority within whose area the works are to be situated.
      No. 28, in page 8, line 2 leave out ' the foregoing subsection ' and insert ' subsection (1) above '.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 8, line 6, at end to insert:
      () A person to whom a direction is issued under this section shall, before commencing any work in pursuance of that direction, give not less than 3 days' notice to the local authority who issued it so as to enable them to supervise the execution of the work, and shall afford them all reasonable facilities for so doing.
      In Committee, the Government accepted in principle an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) which would have required a person to whom the local authority had given a direction under Clause 14 to give three days' notice of undertaking the work and allow the local authorities facilities for supervision. This Amendment gives effect to what the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to achieve.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16.

      VESTING OF SEWERS AND OTHER WORKS IN LOCAL AUTHORITY.
      Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 9, line 26, to leave out paragraph (c).
      This is rather more than a drafting Amendment. It is very important. Subsection (1), (c) vests in the local authorities
      "all private sewers connecting with their sewers or sewage treatment works, whether constructed before or after the commencement of this section;"
      In Committee we tried to get some clarification or some easement of this for local authorities, with an Amendment to the effect that the private sewers should first of all he accepted as public sewers by a resolution of the council, which would have allowed it to stage these operations in a way which did not impose too heavy a financial burden on the council. The Amendment was not accepted and we have the subsection still in this form.
      As was pointed out in Committee, this places a fairly substantial financial obligation on local authorities. I remind my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) said that, as a result of this Clause. Edinburgh would be faced with in annual bill of over £30,000. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was not a very clear definition of pipes or anything like that and that, unless there were a clearer definition in the Bill, there would be disputes between local authorities and owners in cases of blockage and so on, with the result that there would be delays.
      Since then, I have had handed to me a letter raising again this whole question of lack of definition as well as the point about the substantial change which has to be made. It points out that, once this legislation comes into operation, a very substantial burden will be placed on local authorities. It says that the situation is further complicated by the lack of a precise definition of the word "building".
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot debate the Clause at the moment. We are discussing his proposed Amendment to delete subsection (1,c).
      Mr. Willis: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance, but in order to decide what constitutes a private sewer we have to discuss what is a private sewer in relation to a building and this is all in relation to subsection (1). It is because of the lack of definition that local authorities—or at least a number of them—are concerned. The first point concerns the definition of "building". What does "drain" mean? According to the Bill,
      "drain ' … means any pipe or drain within the curtilage of … premises used solely for or in connection with the drainage of one building or of any buildings … within the same curtilage;"
      How does that affect, for example, terraced housing? The letter also refers to Regulation 137 of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations, 1963 which directs that the
      "… land on which the buildings are to be erected shall be deemed to form land in the same occupation notwithstanding that the buildings are intended for different occupation."
      This, of course, could make a considerable saving to the local authority because, instead of its having to take the drain to each house, or each building, it just takes it to the one building. This is important in connection with subsection (1). It is likely, with a better definition, to place an even bigger burden upon the local authorities. I do not want to repeat all the submissions made to me, but the letter goes on:
      "It is interesting to speculate on the future interpretation of 'drain' and subsequently 'sewer' as defined in the Bill. Could the vertical waste and soil pipe in a block of flats be held to be not a 'drain' and therefore a 'sewer' maintainable by the local authority?
      If so, this will add to the expenditure to be incurred by larger burghs.
      Having studied this matter more fully since the Committee stage, I have discovered that there are many problems. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill. The definition Clause does not help much. It does not answer the question I have asked as to the proper interpretation of "drain" or "sewer". In Committee it was suggested that the Under-Secretary should seek to obtain the views of local authorities, an exercise that was not carried out before the Bill was introduced.
      This provision places a substantial new burden upon local authorities. Whenever the Bill becomes operative, each local authority will be faced with

      1471
      a substantial increase in its rate burden. This is the last thing we want to do without giving local authorities the opportunity of phasing it or of taking steps to prevent this burden from falling upon them at one blow.
      The provision has caused considerable concern. There is a lack of precision in the Bill. No method is proposed by which a local authority can assume this new responsibility and this new expenditure in a manner which fits in with its ordinary administration and which is in the best interests of those whom it serves. I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment, but he should give us more information than we have been given up to the present about what this means. What are the definitions? What are the burdens? How does my hon. Friend expect local authorities to absorb this burden in a reasonable manner?
      Sir John Gilmour: The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke of the substantial new burden this provision will impose. Very substantial new burdens are being placed upon those who did not in the past pay full drainage rates. It this paragraph were deleted, their right to connect their drains would be removed and a substantial burden which they are carrying at the moment would not pass to the local authority. The local authority, although it is getting an extra burden, is acquiring a considerable number of new drainage ratepayers.
      Mr. Willis: Not in the cities.
      Sir J. Gilmour: That may be so, but it certainly applies in country districts. As a result of the Bill, local authorities will collect drainage rates from many people who did not previously pay them. The local authority may be assuming an extra obligation, but it will in perpetuity receive extra rates which will go a long way towards defraying the costs.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: At earlier stages we tried to outline the difficulties which will arise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is right in saying that this proposition means ever increasing burdens for local authorities. My county
      1472
      is to dispense with special districts. I do not know how valid the argument of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is about new ratepayers. He and I were at one time members of the same local authority. If there had been special districts in the county of Fife, the amount paid in sewerage rates by new ratepayers, in view of the heavy capital cost of bringing in sewerage, would be very small.
      Midlothian has special districts at present, but they are to be abolished under the Bill. Additional rates will be placed on many. I know that it may be argued that it will be equalised. When in Committee the question of a local authority being responsible for internal drainage was discussed, I said in essence that a subsidy was being given to private housing. We were told that this would mean that private housing would be cheaper. My right hon. Friend and I said that we greatly doubted whether this was the way to give subsidies to private housing.
      This issue is further bedevilled by the fact that nothing specific was said at earlier stages about how cities would be treated. In advance of the argument we said that surely we should not have amending legislation to the extent that the counties would be compelled to be responsible for internal sewerage while cities carried on as at present. We received a vague answer; my hon. Friend said that he was not yet in a position to tell us precisely what would happen. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) asked specifically whether there would be a change in relation to Edinburgh. I do not want to have to return to Midlothian and say, "We are having a revolutionary change. We are dispensing with special districts. We shall now be responsible for internal sewerage, but the ratepayers in Edinburgh are to carry on as before".
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will place us in an impossible position unless he can be more forthcoming. I hope that he can convince us that his propositions are sensible and will be beneficial to all ratepayers and that there will not be a difference between city, county and burgh. If that difference prevails, there will be nothing but confusion.
      Mr. Dempsey: The House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for

      1473
      Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for having tabled the Amendment. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but it is obvious to me that unless the paragraph is deleted there will be a widespread imposition on Scottish local authorities. I do not think there is any doubt about that, because if local authorities are to take private sewers into public ownership we are entitled to know how many private sewers there are in Scotland and what is the annual maintenance cost of these. These are subjects about which we should have information. What surprises me is that we have not heard any member of the Opposition say that he is opposed to this form of nationalisation. They are obviously in favour of it because they realise that some speculators will be relieved of a financial burden which can be prodigious having regard to the nature of the work involved. We are entitled to have some details of what the local authorities will be taking into public ownership.
      Where is the demarcation line between what is taken into the ownership of the local authority and what remains in private ownership? I have been able to follow the reasoning that some people will be worse off because they will be paying increased rates. If this subsection means that the services will be taken over by the local authority, then I can see that as regards rented houses, in which tenants pay increased rents according to rent tribunals and where the houses have not been repaired and the services have not been improved, it will cost them a lot extra if they have also to meet the cost of local authority ownership of sewerage services.
      My right hon. Friend should make it clear what standard of maintenance will be acceptable by the local authorities before they take over. Before local authorities take over and maintain private roads these have to be made up to certain standards. We want to hear what are the acceptable standards to be laid down before the local authorities take on such a financial burden.
      Having said that, I should like to know if my hon. Friend can give us some figures as to the cost of this project to the local authorities in Scotland. Will this cost be considerable and how is it of be refunded? To what extent, after having worked out the cost, will the local
      1474
      authorities be able to claim repayment? Have they got to get some specific elements of the rate support grant to meet this cost or will there be a direct approved expenditure grant towards the cost of taking over and maintaining these private sewers? It is quite possible that the maintenance of the private sewers will be as costly as, if not more costly than, the actual acquisition. I think it is wrong for any decision to be taken in the House of Commons on a blank cheque basis without the facts and figures, the costs and financial implications, being known to this body. This is a reasonable approach to the problem. I do not want to be difficult, and it is not that I wish to embarrass my hon. Friend or his colleagues, but we are rather apprehensive about giving a blank cheque to any one to indulge in such a financial and physical transaction about the economies of which we know nothing. This is not a businesslike way of managing any enterprise, whether it concerns sewerage, roads, housing or any other Department of the Scottish Office.
      On the basis of what my hon. Friend replies I shall make up my mind and take a decision. I require to strike a balance. I may fully support my right hon. Friend's Amendment, but if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can relieve my mind of any inordinate financial worries I shall be very pleased to help him in his effort to get this Bill approved this evening. I was not a Member of the Committee and did not have an opportunity to raise these points. I have spent too many years in local government not to appreciate the financial implications of this particular subsection, and I should not be doing my duty to my constituents or to Scotland if I did not raise these pertinent points now. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give me a satisfactory answer because on his reply will depend my action in connection with my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
      Mr. Buchan: We have had a long debate on this and to some extent it covered some of the points dealt with in the discussion in the Committee stages and also in the discussion on Clause 1. I do not want to go into all the aspects which have been raised. The question whether Members opposite approve of this form of nationalisation could be a

      1475
      double-edged argument on this side, too, because we are concerned to try to create the best possible kind of public sewerage. I think the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put his finger on one of the sensitive points in the whole Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised the question of costs. It is a bit difficult to estimate these. He regards this as a blank cheque but with a thing like this it is quite impossible to make an accurate estimate of everything that constitutes a private sewer. It was said in the Committee that Edinburgh had estimated that it might be of the nature of £30,000.
      Mr. Willis: Very little cost.
      Mr. Buchan: It might be a very little cost. A lot will depend on what is involved at any one point in the way of maintenance, and so on, but that is the estimate that was made. However, the cost cannot be defined very accurately, although hon. Members will have seen the reference to the estimate which we made in the original drafting of the Bill of £100,000 up to 1970. An hon. Member raised the point whether this specific item of local government expenditure would be covered by the rate support grant in the normal way, as happens at the present time. It would and to some extent sewerage may also attract a grant under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act of 1944 and the Local Employment Acts of 1960 to 1966. I think this covers most of the hon. Member's worries on this point.
      The effect of the paragraph he is referring to here depends on the definition of "drain" and "private sewer", as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, and I wish I could have a blackboard with me—as I said in the Committee—so as to try to explain this, because it is highly complicated. I hope the wording of my previous explanation in Committee was clear. If not, I regret that we do not yet use charts and blackboards so that I could illustrate it. However, a drain is a pipe which lies within the curtilage of the premises and serves only that curtilage. If it goes into the street or into a neighbouring property or serves more than one curtilage it ceases to be a drain and becomes a private sewer. It
      1476
      then becomes the responsibility of the local authority. I accept that the definition of "private sewer", "public sewer" and "drain" in our definition Clause is not particularly helpful, but that is the clearest definition I can give to the hon. Member and that is what we have in mind.
      Mr. Willis: What about the tenement building with the drain running down it?
      Mr. Buchan: This is one of the difficulties. Houses in a terrace normally stand each inside its own curtilage. There is a different definition in the building regulations but there it is for a different purpose, where the whole terrace might reasonably be regarded as one building. But I appreciate the difficulty, particularly concerning the use of the word "building", which is not defined.
      Mr. Willis: Why cannot the definition used in the Building Regulations of 1963 be accepted for the purposes of this Bill?
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Buchan: For the simple reason that a different function is being performed. It often happens that a sewer within the same curtilage serves a common purpose. If the sewer were in the street, we should all accept that it would be a public sewer, but by the accident of serving a whole area but being within the curtilege of the structure of the terrace or tenement house it is not.
      We have had further consultations with local authorities, including the Edinburgh Corporation, as I promised in Committee we should do. The local authorities are not confused about the meaning of paragraph (c), although some of them indicated that they thought that it placed an excessive responsibility on local authorities. I cannot accept the intention of the Amendment—that there should be no responsibility on local authorities. Private sewers serve substantial numbers of properties, which should be a public responsibility, and which, incidentally, from time to time involve private owners in difficulties because of costs, and so on. Many of them lie in streets, but some are in back gardens. We think that local authorities should have an obligation to maintain this kind of apparatus and that paragraph (c) is

      1477
      a method of achieving it. We have indicated to the local authorities that we are prepared to consider other methods of achieving the same object, but it is a matter of great difficulty and an alternative formula is not easy to produce.
      It has been suggested that a sewer should not be taken over unless we are satisfied, on the analogy of the private street, that it is in good repair. But again there is a practical difficulty, since in most cases it would be necessary to dig up the sewer to discover whether it was sound, and it is by no means clear who would have to pay for that. If the sewer were exposed, there would be no difficulty.
      Mr. Dempsey: We know of sewer pipes which, due to lack of supervision, were not properly concreted in the earth and as a result eruption occurred. Does my hon. Friend think that local authority should accept the financial responsibility of properly reconcreting and rebedding the pipes, which should have been done when they were laid by the private owner?
      Mr. Buchan: Before there is a takeover, local authorities have power to ensure that pipes are not in that condition. It is the local authority's responsibility to deal with the matter.
      I recognise that a great deal of the difficulty stems from the definition Clause. It does not help very much to say that
      "'private sewer' means any sewer which is not a public sewer."
      But it is not at that point that difficulty arises. The difficulty stems from the word "drain". I am prepared to have another look at the definition of "drain" to see whether it may be modified. I cannot promise that we shall be able to arrive at a satisfactory definition. It is a complicated question. I am not sure that our definition is not necessarily right, but my mind is not closed to making an alteration if a satisfactory alternative definition can be found.
      Mr. Willis: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that he has had, and is, till having, conversations with local authorities about easing the difficulty of finding methods of taking over sewers in a more satisfactory way?
      Mr. Buchan: I said that I was prepared to look again at the definition of "drain". We have had discussions with the local authorities, as I promised in Committee, but we adhere to our view that the basic principle of paragraph (c) is correct.
      Concern has been expressed about the cost of take-overs, but hon. Members will be aware that there is another aspect of the Bill. Various provisions in the Bill will not be implemented until conditions are such that they should be implemented. But certainly there has been no move to alter the intention as it appears in the Clause and to which I must adhere.
      Mr. Willis: With the permission of the House, may I say that I did not expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would accept the Amendment. But the discussion has performed a useful service in showing us that my hon. Friend has gone to some pains to pursue the matters which we raised in Committee.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend has consulted some local authorities about the problems which arise from paragraph (c). I hope that there will be further consideration of the definitions and that what my hon. Friend said about bringing the provisions into operation will meet the fears of local authorities. In view of the forthcoming way in which he has dealt with this matter, and since we spent a long time on it in Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17.

      LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY TAKE OVER PRIVATE SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 10, line 3, after may ' insert:
      ', by agreement with the owner of the works, or failing agreement'.
      Mr. Speaker: We can take at the same time Amendments No. 33 and No. 35.
      Mr. Buchan: In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) moved a series of Amendments to Clause 17, the effect of which would have been to provide for

      1479
      agreements between local authorities and owners of private sewage treatment works for the taking over of such works by the local authority. Only in case of failure to reach agreement could the local authority invoke the procedure of taking over the works by notice.
      We accepted the principle underlying those Amendments and undertook to look at the matter before Report. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that our Amendments achieve his aim.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 10, line 18, leave out from 'notice' to 'decision' in line 20 and insert:
      'appeal to the Secretary of State who may confirm the proposals of the local authority and any conditions so specified either with or without modification or refuse to confirm them, and his'.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time Amendment No. 34.
      Mr. Buchan: This was one of the climactic moments in Committee. The effect of these Amendments is to substitute an appeal to the Secretary of State for the appeal to be the sheriff under Clause 17. This implements the undertaking which we gave in Committee after a long and protracted struggle on other parts of the Clause. No doubt the Amendment will rejoice the hearts of hon. Members opposite.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 33, in page 10, line 22, after them ', insert:
      'in accordance with the terms of any agreement made under subsection (1) above, or Failing such agreement';
      No. 34, in line 24, leave out ` sheriff' and insert ' Secretary of State ';
      No. 35, in line 30, at beginning insert:
      'An agreement under subsection (1) above or '.—[Mr. Buchan.]

    Clause 18.

      EXPENSES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND DISSOLUTION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 11, line 17, leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I propose that we discuss Amendment No. 37, in page 11, line 17, leave out ' five' and insert 'nine'.

      Amendment No. 38, in page 11, line 19, leave out 'year' and insert 'five years'.

      Amendment No. 39, in page 11, line 20, leave out 'second' and insert 'sixth'.

      Government Amendment No. 40.

      Amendment No. 41, in page 11, line 21, leave out ' third ' and insert 'seventh'.

      Government Amendment No. 42.

      Amendment No. 43, in page 11, line 22, leave out 'fourth' and insert 'eighth'.

      Government Amendment No. 44.

      Amendment No. 45, in page 11, line 23, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'ninth'.

      Government Amendments No. 46 and No. 47.

      Mr. Buchan: When the Bill was in Committee there was a very lengthy discussion on the principles of Clause 18, which lasted pretty well all day. At the end of that discussion we undertook to reconsider the length of time allowed in subsection (4) for the transition from the existing rating arrangements, with the cost of sewerage falling substantially on special district sewer rates charged in special drainage districts, to a system in which the cost of sewerage will fall on the general county rate.
      These Amendments substitute for the five-year period in subsection (4) a transitional period of up to seven years. There is a consequential change in the amount of rates that can be raised during that period in the former special drainage districts. For the first two years, instead of the first year, the sum raised by the transitional rate may be as much as the yield of the former special district sewer rate. Thereafter, the proportion drops by 15 per cent., instead of by 20 per cent., for each of the remaining five years until in the seventh year it falls to not more than 25 per cent. of the yield of the former special district sewer rate. A local authority can, of course, switch over to charging the whole cost to the general county rate, if it wishes, over a shorter transitional period. The percentages quoted in subsection (4), both as drafted and as proposed to be amended, are maxima.
      Mr. Michael Noble: I hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that I have been remiss in my duties. On many occasions when Amendments have been made in response to commitments, it is right that one should get up and say "Thank you". I thought it would be tedious if I got up and said "Thank you" so often to things which we suggested should be done and which, on consideration, it has been decided should be done. My "Thank you" on this Amendment is modified because Clause 18 was difficult. It brings in what both sides of the House, including the Liberal Party, which does not appear to be represented today, felt was a serious problem, because many people in rural areas would have to pay rates for something they did not receive and were unlikely to receive in many areas.
      We discussed this problem in detail for a whole morning. Reading the account of our debate, I am still certain that the Amendment which we are making today marginally improves the situation, because it gives a slightly longer period. However, it does not remove the basic objection in principle for the county councils in the rural areas who were opposed to the new scheme which the Minister has brought in under this Clause. The county councils asked us to do everything that we could to improve it one way or another. I hope that before we leave the Clause the Minister will be able to tell us the names of the county councils which he said were not against the proposal. He said that there was a number not against the proposal. We asked him on four or five occasions during the morning which they were but he had not the names with him. They were not on his cuff at the time. He has now had several weeks and I am sure he will be able to tell us which they were.
      The evidence that we had and have had since then shows that county councils with mainly rural populations are seriously worried about the effect of this Clause on a great many of their ratepayers. When they see that there is an extra two years in which to continue their present system I am sure this will be some relief, but it will not solve the principle that they were against. Therefore, their appreciation of what the Minister has been able to do will be distinctly modified.
      1482
      If it is churlish not to say "Thank you" for small relief, then I will say "Thank you", but I hope that before long the Minister will be convinced that this is an inequitable principle in rural areas. Perhaps it will take until the Bill comes into operation—and by that time the Minister is unlikely still to be in charge of any part of Scotland, though that is neither here nor there—but I believe that the Scottish Office will have to look into this again fairly soon after it comes into operation because it will not work in its present form.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) referred to county councils in rural areas being opposed to the provisions of this Bill, and particularly this Clause. As recently as this morning I received a telegram from the clerk to my county council asking that we press for modification, as we did in Committee. Although we have this slight concession from the Government—and we welcome it—I hope that they will again consult with the local authorities on this vital question which affects the sparsely populated rural areas. I hope, too, that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us which county councils were in favour of this proposal. I hope that he will get down to this and possibly, when the Bill goes to another place, will incorporate what we originally asked for in our Amendments in Committee. If he cannot go that far, I hope that he will at least incorporate the Amendments on the Order Paper standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro).
      Mr. Hector Monro: I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) in giving a limited welcome to this Amendment. It is a little better than we had before. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will remember that he scraped home by only one vote on what was the most important debate in Committee.
      The principle has not really been changed. All he has managed to do is to

      1483
      change the five-year transitional period to seven years. That has not altered the same principle that we opposed in the Water Bill, namely, that many people will have to pay for a service that they are unlikely to receive. Hon. Members on this side were able to quote various local authority figures: 60 per cent. in Dumfries, 50 per cent. in Wigtownshire, 54 per cent. in Roxburgh, and 60 per cent. in Perth. These were the figures of those who, during the transitional period, would begin paying higher rates and receive nothing in return. Nor do we get any alleviation under Clause 10, which relates to the emptying of septic tanks. There is no doubt that the ratepayers being most harshly treated by the provisions of what in general is a most helpful Bill are those in the rural areas who will never receive the service.
      I accept that this two-year increase is a step in the right direction, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give careful thought and a favourable reception to the suggestion that the nine year period would be better still. I hope, too, that as he promised in Committee, he will tell us which rural councils are supporting his proposal. When we were discussing the matter upstairs, he said:
      "I do not know which counties off the cuff, but I hope I can give him the answer later. I have been assured that is so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968; c. 346]
      The hon. Gentleman has had rather more than a month in which to find out which counties are supporting him on this method of paying rates.
      I give the Amendment limited support, but I still hope that he will accept our Amendments, which are very much better.
      Mr. Buchan: It is always a consolation to be thanked by the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), even though he always waits for the opportunity when his thanks can be slightly barbed.
      I think that one of the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen opposite are facing is that they have moved in our direction. What has now happened is that, with this Amendment, they have accepted the basic principle which we put forward in Committee, because they are now trying to modify our proposal by a period of an extra two years. For this, too, I must give
      1484
      thanks that the light sometimes strikes in strange places.
      We have extended the period from five years to seven to make things easier. The Opposition have suggested nine years. I suspect that if we had put down nine years, they would have suggested eleven. There is no argument in favour of nine years. This is really stretching it beyond the crack of doom, because one must remember that the various provisions of the Bill will not be brought into effect until the Secretary of State decides that they should be. They will not come into operation straight away. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have accepted the principle, and we are disagreeing only about the number of years—seven years, as against nine.
      Mr. Noble: To keep the record straight, perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not accepting the principle, but we have been in this House for long enough to know that if we put down the same Amendment as we tabled in Committee and ask Mr. Speaker to consider it for discussion on Report it will not be called. That is the simple fact, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should try to pretend that we have accepted something which I assure him we have not.
      Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment.
      Mr. Buchan: As my right hon. Friend suggests, it might be more suitable if the Opposition were to withdraw their Amendment, as there does not appear to be any principle behind it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) based their Amendment on a firm principle. The right hon. Member for Argyll has not based his Amendment on any principle whatsoever.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the North Eastern Water Board put forward a provisional water Order to make provision for an interim period of nine years? There is, therefore, a good precedent for suggesting nine years in this case.
      Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, but I did not altogether follow that. If the hon. Gentleman is recognising that that is an interim measure, that is fair enough.
      I think that we must adhere to the Government's Amendment. I accept that

      1485
      the county councils, particularly those outside the central belt, will need time to provide sewerage services for their areas, and the purpose of a traditional period is to recognise that need.
      I come, now, to the question whether I undertook to name the rural councils which supported our proposal. This is to some extent an invention by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). In Committee I said:
      "Not all counties are opposed to the proposals."
      The hon. Member for Dumfries asked:
      "Would the hon. Gentleman tell us which rural counties of Scotland are in favour?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968; c. 345–6.]
      I did not refer to rural counties being in favour.
      Mr. Noble rose—
      Mr. Buchan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech.
      The Bill will not become operative until we recognise that the economic climate is such that local authorities can reasonably be expected to start expanding their sewerage services. Thereafter, they will have seven years in which to make the provision which would justify finally charging the whole cost of sewerage to the general county rate. This is not only a matter of providing main drainage. What we have in mind is the provision of small sewerage treatment works, often in the form of septic tanks. At the moment almost all the rural county councils are meeting the cost of sewerage, to a substantial extent from the general rates. This is often forgotten by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There are a few rural counties in which the contribution from the general rate is less than one-third of the total rate income, and in several it is substantially more than half. I think that I quoted some of these figures in Committee.
      If the present standard of service justifies that level of contribution from the general rate, I do not think it is unrealistic to take the view that local authorities can do enough work in seven years to justify the transition to charging the whole cost to the general rate. In the nature of things, the general rate will very largely be paid by people living in the existing special drainage districts,
      1486
      since these tend to be the most heavily populated areas.
      In addition, I have grave doubts about the initial period of five years suggested in the Opposition's proposal. Our suggestion is seven years. Here we are extending the first year of waiting to two years of waiting, and a phase-out from then onwards. The Opposition have put forward this cabalistic figure of nine. They have put in a five year waiting period, with a decrease in rates to the end point. I envisage a situation in which sewerage services will be improved outside the special drainage districts. We are anxious that this should happen as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes operative, and when it begins to happen I think that there will be a certain justice in transferring some of the burden of rates away from those who are living in the former special drainage districts.
      I accept that local authorities will need time to prepare for the new conditions, but I doubt whether a period of as long as five years is necessary. To some extent the fixing of priorities and advance planning can be done before the Bill becomes operative, even though the work cannot be undertaken immediately. Apart from that, it seems to me possible that the period in which special district sewer rates can continue to be charged in full will be regarded by some local authorities as a period in which they need not attempt to improve their existing services, and I should not like these first five years, after all the argument and discussion that has gone into this, to be regarded by these councils as a period of total inactivity. For this reason I prefer our proposal to give a two-year standstill.
      The other detailed figures both in the Government Amendment, and in the Opposition one, represent a smooth transition, and I do not want to comment on them. To some extent this is narrowed down to being a matter of judgment. The transitional period allowed for in the Government Amendment will not expire before 1976 at the earliest, because the rating provisions should come into force at the beginning of a local authority financial year, that is, on 15th May of the appropriate year. The earliest possible date will be 16th May, 1969. Under the Bill it will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, which will mean at

      1487
      least 1976, and I hope that the Opposition will not push an Amendment which will mean pushing our more sensible proposal into the almost literal millenium.
      Mr. Noble: I tried to intervene earlier. The hon. Gentleman took up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) about naming the councils which were not opposed to this proposal. The hon. Gentleman read only part of the discussion. In Committee the hon. Gentleman said:
      'Not all counties are opposed to the proposals."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries asked:
      "Would the hon. Gentleman tell us which rural counties of Scotland are in favour?"
      to which the Minister replied:
      "We might be able to deal with that later."
      The hon. Gentleman was asked again, and he said:
      "If I can find the answer … I will give it to the hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee; 5th March, 1968; cc. 345–6.]
      It is no good his trying to say now that he did not mean that. All he has to do is say straight that there are no rural counties, or, if he likes to go further, that there are no counties at all which take this view. We would accept that he made a mistake, but let us have no more of this double talk.
      Mr. Buchan: I am not sure that any double talk is involved. I said:
      "If I can find the answer before the morning is up I will give it to the hon. Gentleman … I hope I can give him the answer later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March, 1968, c. 346.]
      I still cannot give him the answer, but I certainly fulfilled what I said, and this was not a matter only of rural counties.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. George Younger: The Under-Secretary is being unnecessarily obtuse, which is one of the reasons why the Committee stage took longer than any of us expected. Everyone can make a mistake. If he made a mistake and can now say at least that some counties—I would have thought that it was easy enough to limit it to some rural counties, but let us extend it, if it makes it easier for the hon. Gentleman, to any counties at all—support this proposal, we would accept that. There would be no disgrace in his admitting a slip of the tongue in
      1488
      Committee, and it would save an enormous amount of time if the hon. Gentleman made a clean breast of it. We should like to know whether any counties at all favour this method, or, better still, if any rural counties do. If he cannot tell us, I should be grateful if he would say so and we can then pass on to the next business.
      I was not impressed by the hon. Gentleman's criticism that we have abandoned the principle of our Amendment. He must know that we cannot discuss again now the principle of our original Amendment in Committee. If he can tell us how we could do so, we should be happy to argue it again, but it is not in order, so we are justified in raising the matter again to try to improve the position which was left after Committee.
      Nor was I impressed by the hon. Gentleman's insistence that, by trying to lengthen the period in which there would be no change, we were delaying the implementation of the Bill. In the first place, the Government are delaying it indefinitely since no date has been placed on its implementation. For him to criticise us for writing in a certain delay is a two-edged argument. He says that we are postponing it to the millenium, but he is postponing it infinitely. It is not logical for him to criticise us.
      We are trying to mitigate the financial effects of the Bill on people who will never, in the foreseeable future, benefit from it. Yet they will eventually, even under our Amendments, have to pay a proportion of the cost. These Amendments have the support, I think, of every county council in Scotland. That is surely a good reason for the hon. Gentleman to be sympathetic and accept our Amendments, which are more generous than his.
      Mr. Willis: I am intrigued by the vigorous interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their worthy desire to protect people from paying for something which will not benefit them, but I did not notice them supporting me and my hon. Friends, in Committee or here, in trying to do the same for the people in the cities—to prevent ratepayers being compelled to pay additional rates for something which would not affect them. Why this discrimination? After all, many people in

      1489
      the cities do not enjoy high standards of life and can no more afford this payment than those in the rural counties. I wonder why this dichotomy of thought—
      Mr. Noble: Of course we sympathise with city ratepayers who have to pay more, but they are at least getting the drains and the sewage. We are trying to help those who are getting nothing.
      Mr. Willis: Hon. Gentlemen did not support those in the cities who will get nothing additional for an additional payment. I will get no benefit by paying for sewers for people moving into private housing estates in Barnton and other areas, but I will have to pay for them, under the Bill. We graciously accepted that this was the right social approach: we all pay for things which do not benefit us. I have no one at school, but I pay about £30 or £40 a year rates for education. There is a whole list of similar obligations. This is the basis of our society, that we help people—
      Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to persuade the House that he has had no education?
      Mr. Willis: I have had considerable education in the Scottish Grand and Standing Committees, in the House and in my political life, which enables me to realise the ideology which is usually behind the propositions of hon. Members opposite. It is slightly out of date and should be replaced with something more suited to the modern world.
      My hon. Friend has gone out of his way to meet their request with Amendments which try to be helpful and they should be grateful for this spirit of compromise and good will. He has shown the reasonable and non-political attitude which one expects of an administrator in this Government. Hon. Gentlemen should pay tribute to this instead of being so grudging. When we were in opposition, we always expressed gratitude, in a fulsome way, when it was called for—although it was only rarely that I had to do it. In fact, I can think of only one occasion in 13 years. Hon. Gentlemen should say that they appreciate the Government's difficulties and are grateful for the help which they are giving.
      Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Although I did not have the privilege to serve on the Committee which considered the Bill, I am interested in the principle being adduced by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that even if one does not receive a service one must pay for it. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) gave the example of education. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned roads, saying that not every road went to the door of every croft in every county in Scotland. The example of the right hon. Gentleman showed the fallacy of his case because one need only listen to him to identify the complexity, depth and sophistication of his education—and he had to pay rates to get it.
      The argument that although one does not receive a service one should still pay for it for the benefit of others is unfair because in this day and age, when relics of that system still exist, our aim should be to reduce them and not to use them as a premise for legislation. For that reason the Government should accept the Opposition proposal.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: At a late stage in the day the debate has suddenly taken on an unexpected ideological overtone. I am in the somewhat embarrassing position of not agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in matters affecting the Highlands. He is the doyen, the architect, of many advances in the Highlands and is very much aware of the issues facing us. On this occasion, however, I have some sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      As I expressed my views on the Clause at considerable length at an earlier stage of the Bill—along with my fears about the inequity of the transitional arrangements—it is unnecessary for me to cover the ground again, particularly since the Amendments, both Government and Opposition, are, in principle, not different. We must choose between two clear evils and there is nothing to be said for the Opposition proposals over those of the Government.
      There are those in the Highlands who feel reluctant to go the whole way with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East in the view that they should pay for services which they not only do not get but which they will not

      1491
      stand a chance of getting in the forseeable future. This state of affairs is only too common in the Highlands, where some of the services which are taken for granted in the more populous parts of Scotland are beyond the horizon. I therefore find myself reluctantly accepting the Under-Secretary's argument. There is no principle behind the Opposition stand. It is a simple illustration of opposing for the sake of opposition. I cannot enthusiastically support the Government Amendments, although I accept that they somewhat ameliorate the position.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Ross: I rise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have felt so much at home during this discussion that I thought I was back in the old Scottish Committee. I felt that I could not let the occasion pass without making the few remarks.
      The issue is not as simple or as black and white as some hon. Members have suggested. We are trying to provide a service where no service exists, and we want to be fair to everyone. It has been suggested that we are asking local authorities to take over far too much and to provide benefits which people are not at present getting at the expense of the rest of the population. If there is any place in which our sewerage service is bad, it is the rural areas of Scotland. It is there that we can make improvements, but we will never make them as long as we have special sewerage districts. It is as simple as that.
      We appreciate that the cost of providing this service will be considerable for local authorities. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite refer to the attitude of local authorities and county councils towards the Clause, I suggest that that opposition may be related not to how it will apply to individuals but to how it will apply to the finances of local authorities. Once the special districts are abolished and people are paying more and more, when they have hitherto not been paying so much, there will be a greater demand for this service to be applied to them. It will then not be possible to relate this matter to, for example, the provision of electricity and the expense of the subsidy that is provided by the rest of the community who are linked up in the supply of electricity.
      1492
      This is merely a question of checks and balances.
      When hon. Gentlemen opposite question the transitional period, it is wrong for them to say that the Bill is being held up and that we have no right to talk about an extra two years. Whatever the delay, it was suggested in one Amendment—it has not been called—that it would be two years beyond that. I believe that we have struck a happy medium by having the period of seven years. I would have liked the five-year period, which was the original suggestion, but we have decided to advance it by a further two years.
      This will be a reasonable time in which local authorities can improve their services and I am sure that an improvement will take place. As we want to ensure the proper dispersal of our population, it is desirable that this step is made. Many of the people who do not have the advantage of such a service have complained about this lack and I hope that there will be a diminishing number of people who will be penalised by the lack of this service. I am convinced that we must take this step. Unless we do, we will never achieve the improvement we must have.
      A lot of fuss has been made about what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in Committee one morning. It is usual form for a Minister to say: "If I can, I will find out". He spoke about counties and not about rural counties—about counties which have less rural territory and which are less concerned about this aspect. He did not give a list in which they were named and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will not produce a list of every county which supports him in his argument.
      Mr. Younger: I do not want to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman nor to the Under-Secretary, but the Under-Secretary said that not all local authorities were against this. Could he give the name of just one?
      Mr. Ross: He did not say that all the counties are opposed to the purpose. He did not think they were all opposed and then someone took him up on the non-rural counties. I think we are making far too much of this in relation to the numbers.
      Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear this point up? The last thing I want to do is to waste time, but in Committee on 5th March the Under-Secretary said:
      "Not all counties are opposed to the proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th March 1968; c. 345.]
      That is perfectly clear. Was that true, or was it not?
      Mr. Ross: From the point of view of counties declaring their position, that is true. People who oppose write in to say that they oppose, but generally speaking those who are in favour do not give that indication.
      Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?
      Mr. Ross: No, I am not giving way.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman should explain to the—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not given way.
      Mr. Ross: We have been wasting a lot of time on something which does not matter in relation to the principle. So far as my hon. Friend understands, and this is still the position officially, not all counties are opposed.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
      Mr. Ross: Usually when people are concerned about opposition they let us know. The proposal which the Government has put forward is a reasonable compromise which gives time for works to be done and for people to appreciate a changed situation and to prepare for it. There is a seven-year transitional period, p us the time until the actual appointed date. I hope that the House will accept tt at and will accept the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 40, in. page 11, line 20, leave out 80 per cent of'.

      No. 42, in line 21, leave out '60' and insert '85'.

      No. 44, in line 22, leave out '40 ' and insert '70'.

      No. 46, in line 23, leave out '20 ' and insert '55'.

      No. 47, in line 23, at end insert:

      (f) for the sixth year, 40 per cent. in the relevant sum;

      (g) for the seventh year, 25 per cent. of the relevant sum.—[Mr. Buchan.]

    Clause 20.

      COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER THIS PART OF THIS ACT.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 12, line 16, at end insert 'loss, injury or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.
      Mr. Buchan: In Committee this Clause of the Bill was amended at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of loss or injury as well as of damage. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are purely consequential and Amendment No. 50 is a minor drafting improvement.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 49, in line 27, at end insert 'loss, injury or'.
      No. 50, in line 28, after 'sustained', insert 'by him'.—[Mr. Buchan.]

    Clause 27.

      PROCEDURE ON APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO NEW DISCHARGE.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 15, line 10, leave out person who ' and insert:
      'body acting under statutory powers which'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 52, 57 and 58.
      Mr. Buchan: The effect of Amendment No. 51 is to ensure that a copy of a trade effluent notice is not sent by the local authority under Clause 27(4) to any private person or concerns. When the Bill was in Committee there was considerable discussion and some disquiet expressed lest under this Clause information might be given to other traders which would enable them to discover trade

      1495
      secrets. We promised to consider this and the effect of the Amendment will be that only authorities acting under statutory powers will receive information. The question of information going to trade competitors should not therefore arise.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 52, in page 15, line 13, leave out 'person to whom' and insert 'body to which'.[Mr. Buchan.]

    Clause 29.

      DECISION ON APPLICATION.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 16, line 17, leave out from 'the' to 'cooling' and insert:
      'elimination from or the diminution in any trade effluent of'.
      This Amendment implements an undertaking in Committee to reconsider the wording of paragraph (f) of Clause 29(3). As drafted the paragraph would seem to leave the local authority with no discretion save to exclude all cooling water from trade effluent. The intention is that the local authority should be enabled to control the discharge of cooling water in trade effluent accepting as much of it as it thinks reasonable. The Amendment makes the necessary drafting alteration.
      Amendment agreed to.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 16, line 18, at end insert:
      (g) the prevention of any injury to the health of persons engeged in carrying out the functions of the authority under this Act as a result of the discharge of any trade effluent into the sewers;
      The effect of the Amendment is to include, in the list of conditions that a local authority can attach to the discharge of a trade effluent, a specific reference to conditions to protect the health of workers in the local authority's sewerage undertaking. The Amendment meets an undertaking given in Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) moved an Amendment with the same purpose.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 17, line 4, after 'revenue', insert 'or saving'.
      This is a small Amendment, which, through an oversight on my part, I did not put down on Committee stage. It is to introduce another criterion which should fall to be considered in the variety of circumstances spelled out in the paragraph in which it appears. It is an Amendment which ought to commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Buchan: There is always a temptation to hope that the Amendment will commend itself to hon. Members opposite. I cannot accept it. In the first place, it is unnecessary. I hoped to get some clarification but, as I thought, it means what it says. There is nothing further to it, and it is not necessary.
      If one looks at page 16 from line 40 onward, one sees:
      "… regard being had to the nature and composition and to the volume and rate of discharge of the trade effluent so discharged, to any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred by the authority in connection with the reception, treatment or disposal of the trade effluent …"
      It is, of course, a net expense, and to that extent anything that is a saving in it will be taken into consideration. Revenue can only refer to revenue from the sale of effluent by the authority under Clause 40. This revenue would be offset against the cost to the local authority of dealing with the effluent, and the local authority would have to take this into account in fixing charges. This kind of saving is therefore already covered.
      I cannot think of any other kind of saving except the balancing of accounts. It is quite clear from the context that it is the physical possession of the effluent that is in question, and this would normally lead to greater expense, and not to a saving. The main thing is that it is already covered, and I hope the hon. Member will accept that.
      Mr. Wylie: If the words "net additional expense" had appeared, it would have been perfectly clear. It was not clear to those advising me and it was not clear to me. In the light of the Minister's explanation that savings are taken into account in this way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 30.
      INTIMATION OF DECISION.
      Amendment made: No. 57, in page 18, line 4, leave out 'person to whom' and insert 'body to which'.—[Mr. Ross.]
    Clause 32.
      REVIEW OF CONSENTS, CONDITIONS AND REFUSALS.
      Amendment made: No. 58, in page 18, line 30, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.—[Mr. Ross.]
    Clause 33.

      MEANING OF EXISTING DISCHARGE.
      Amendments made: No. 59, in page 19, line 16, leave out 'summarily'.
      No. 60, in page 19, line 16, leave out from 'sheriff' to end of line 17 and insert:
      'against whose determination an appeal shall lie to the Court of Session.'.—[Mr. Ross.]

    Clause 38.

      KEEPING BY AUTHORITY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DISCHARGES.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 61, in page 21, line 20, leave out Clause 38.
      Clause 38 required a local authority to keep available for public inspection copies of decisions, directions and agreements made by them in relation to the discharge of trade effluent. The provision was intended to assist traders, by making it possible for them to discover on what kind of conditions the local authority allowed discharges in their area, and to satisfy themselves that the authority was adopting a uniform approach. It had genuinely been put in to assist the local trader. However, when the Bill was in Committee there were complaints that this might enable competitors to gain access to trade secrets, which could be deduced from the conditions imposed. The complaints originated from industrial interests, and if industry is worried about this provision, which was intended for their protection, then the safest thing is
      1498
      to delete the Clause altogether, There does not seem to be any practical method of ensuring that when information is made public it will exclude all matter which might be of value to trade competitors.
      Mr. Wylie: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. I can assure him that this was a matter of concern to industrial interests. The Amendment he is promoting will be appreciated by industrialists in Scotland.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 40.

      LOCAL AUTHORITY TO HAVE RIGHT TO SEWAGE.
      Amendments made: No. 62, in page 22, line 24, after 'works', insert:
      'and to the contents of any septic tank emptied by them under section 10(1) above'.
      No. 63, in line 25, after 'sewage', insert 'or contents'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
      Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 22, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
      It was suggested in Committee that subsection (2) is unnecessary. Clause 40 restates the substance of Section 108 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, which sets the precedent for spelling out the powers contained in subsection (2). It is fair to point out that local authorities must be specifically empowered to carry out functions before they can spend money. However, we have looked at this again, and we think the necessary powers are sufficiently implied in subsection (1), and that the deletion of subsection (2) is justified.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 47.

      CERTAIN MATTER NOT TO BE PASSED INTO DRAINS.
      Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 24, line 20, at end insert:
      Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this section if he proves that at the time he so

      1499
      passed or permitted to be passed the matter or substance concerned he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that it would be likely to have the aforementioned effects.
      When the Bill was in Committee we considered proposed Amendments by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) to import into the Clause a qualification to the effect that an offence would be committed only if polluting matter were passed knowingly into the sewerage system. The important word is "knowingly". While accepting in principle that something of the sort was desirable, we explained that there is some difficulty in producing an Amendment in an acceptable form. Now that we have had a chance to give more thought to this, we move this Amendment which we think covers the situation. It enables a person charged with an offence under Clause 47 to put forward the defence that he did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that his action would have the undesirable effects referred to in subsection (1).
      Mr. Wylie: I welcome the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as the Clause stood, it was a very inequitable provision and imputed a statutory offence for which in many cases there could be no moral responsibility. The way that the problem has been resolved is satisfactory, although it switches the onus on to the accused to explain why he did not know. However, he should be in a position to do that.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 48.

      RECOVERY OF EXPENSES BY LOCAL AUTHORITY.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 24, line 31, leave out from 'thereof' to 'on' and insert 'they may'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we can take Amendment No. 67.
      Mr. Buchan: The Amendment very much simplifies the drafting by substituting "they may" for the words "it
      1500
      shall be competent for them to". I am indebted for the suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who raised the matter in Committee with a sharp, shrewd and correct piece of drafting which I am glad to accept.
      Mr. Willis: I must express my gratitude to my hon. Friend. This ensures the insertion of a little gem, a piece of beautiful English in the midst of a welter of legal verbiage. Whether anyone will discover it, I do not know.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 67, in page 24, line 32, leave out second 'to'.[Mr. Ross.]

    Clause 55.

      LOCAL ENACTMENTS.
      Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 28, line 40, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we can take Amendments Nos. 69 to 72.
      Mr. Ross: This must be a happy occasion for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). In Committee, he asked whether orders made by me under subsections (2) and (3) can be prayed against, and I know his historic interest in this.
      The effect of the Amendment is to make this possible. There is precedent for both ways, of course. However, on consideration, it appears right that there should be an opportunity for Parliament to discuss orders preserving or amending provisions of local Acts under Clause 55.
      Mr. Willis: We had a long discussion on this Clause in Committee, during which I raised the possibility of our being allowed to pray against an order. I was prompted to pursue the matter on Report by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I was surprised that he should wish to filibuster his own Bill by prompting me to do something. He suggested that I would be impelled to further action on Report. Taking his words literally, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I framed Amendments in order to raise the matter again. My right hon. Friend has met

      1501
      our wish, so that orders may be debated on a Prayer. That gives hon. Members the opportunity to raise any matter of importance when Orders dealing with Glasgow or Edinburgh are being discussed. That is what we wanted, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having met us.
      Mr. Eadie: I would like to endorse the sentiment expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East to my right hon. Friend and thank him for his response, because during the whole of the course of the Bill we have always had to come back to the question whether Glasgow and Ayr and Edinburgh or some other local authority would be able to do something different from my own county of Midlothian. During the course of the discussion my right hon. Friend and I had sharp words—
      Mr. Buchan: Not sharp.
      Mr. Eadie: We had words about what the provision should be and I must express my gratitude to him for being so helpful.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 69, in page 29, line 11, leave out 'made by statutory instrument'.
      No. 72, in page 29, line 12, at end insert:
      (4) Any order made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Ross.]

    Clause 59.

      INTERPRETATION.
      Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 31, line 41, after 'industry', insert 'carried on at trade premises'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 74.
      Mr. Buchan: This and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments which require a little comment. Their effect is to relate the definition of "trade effluent'' more clearly to the premises at which the trade or industry is carried on, and to make it clear that, in relation to
      1502
      any premises, "trade effluent" means effluent produced in the course of a trade or industry carried on at those premises. I believe this defines rather more clearly what is to be regarded as trade effluent in any particular circumstances. This problem was discussed in Committee.
      It seems to me that the great problem is that contaminated water is still surface water and there is an obligation on the local authority to receive it into its sewers, with the caveat of proceedings under Clause 47 if it is such as to be likely to injure the sewerage system. In my view, that is the answer we want. The Amendments we are discussing, I should have thought, would make it very difficult to argue that contaminated surface water is trade effluent; and to that extent they assist towards a sensible approach to the problem of contaminated surface water.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 74, in page 31, line 42, at end insert:
      'and, in relation to any trade premises, means any such liquid as aforesaid which is so produced in the course of any trade or industry carried on at those premises'.—[Mr. Ross.]
      Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, in page 31, line 45, after 'experiment', to insert:
      'and the carrying on of a hospital or a nursing home'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments No. 76 and No. 77.
      Mr. Ross: This and the following two Amendments are primarily drafting Amendments designed to clarify the application of the Bill to a hospital or nursing home. The redrafted definition gives better effect to the original intention that effluent from hospitals and nursing homes should be treated in the same way as effluent from trade premises.
      Mr. Younger: There was a further important point which I wish to raise with the right hon. Gentleman. That is, the question of zoological gardens which may not be specifically described as either agriculture or horticulture, or under any other heading. Some concern has been expressed whether there might not be a case for the specific inclusion of zoological gardens in case they are not covered by other definitions.
      Mr. Buchan: I diligently inquired into this problem of zoological gardens and, the position seems to be perfectly all right.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 76, in page 32, line 2, at end insert 'or as a hospital or a nursing home'.
      No. 77, in line 4 leave out from 'industry' to end of line 5.—[Mr. Ross.]
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Clause 5.

      PROVISIONS RELATING TO RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN LEGITIMATION.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. N. R. Wylie: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 30, after first 'that' insert 'when that person was born'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): It will be convenient for the House to discuss also Amendment 2, in line 30, leave out from 'was' to 'domiciled' in line 31.
      Mr. Wylie: The Amendment is partly drafting, but it is also being used to clarify in our own minds, with the help of the Under-Secretary, the purpose and intentions behind the Clause, which was added in Committee. Initially the provisions of the Bill were somewhat along the lines of the provisions of Section 8 of the Legitimacy Act, 1926, and dealt with the qustion of the recognition of legitimations under foreign law. It is a somewhat technical field of discussion. I
      1504
      hope that I shall not unduly bore the House in the process, but it is important.
      The original proposal was clear, was readily understood, and, I repeat, followed the pattern of the 1926 Act. This is the provision which applies to England and Wales but not to Scotland:
      "Where the parents of an illegitimate person marry or have married one another, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and the father of the illegitimate person was or is, at the time of the marriage domiciled in a country, other than England or Wales, by the law of which the illegitimate person became legitimated by virtue of such subsequent marriage, that person, if living, shall in England and Wales be recognised as having been so legitimated from the commencement of this Act".
      In other words, Parliament thought fit there to amend what I understand to be the rules of private international law that, to obtain recognition of legitimation under a foreign law, it was necessary for the father to be domiciled in a country recognising legitimation in this way both at the date of birth of the child and at the date of the subsequent marriage. The 1926 Act abolished the need for the father's domicile at the date of the marriage.
      When the Bill came to us from the House of Lords, the corresponding provision it contained was readily identified with the provisions to which I have just referred. No exception was taken to any of the provisions of the Bill. Unfortunately, the Government deemed it necessary to take out the original Clause 2 and they inserted Clause 5 by way of a new Clause presented in Committee.
      I understand that the reason was that very recently the House of Lords took a decision in a divorce case called Indyka in which it moved away from domicile of the husband as the basis of recognition of a foreign decree. The question of legitimation is equally a matter involving status.
      The Under-Secretary was right to have regard to the possible impact the decision might have, and his explanations for radically altering the provisions of the Bill, albeit at that late stage, are tied up with that decision. At the first sitting of the Committee he said:
      "In its present form, the Clause—
      that is, Clause 2 as it then was—
      "restates the existing law with its recommended amendments. What the present Clause says is that if, by the law of the foreign country

      1505
      in which the father of an illegitimate person is domiciled at the time of the marriage of his father to his mother, that person is rendered legitimate, the law of Scotland will also recognise him as legitimate. That was the original intention of the Bill.
      We have, however, come to the conclusion in consultation with the Law Commission—"—
      the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Scottish Law Commission—
      "and hon Members will be aware of the background—that it would be unwise at present to codify the law about foreign legitimation this form."
      I pause to point out that whatever view one may take of the case of Indyka, which concerned recognition of a foreign decree of divorce, the recognition of foreign legitimations in England is governed by Section 8 of the Legitimacy Act, 1926, and although in every other respect the Bill is intended to bring the law of Scotland on legitimation per subsequens matrimonium into line with the law of England, in this respect it seems to be parting company with it.
      The hon. Gentleman went on:
      "The reason for this arises from a decision by the House of Lords given after the Law Commission's Report—a decision which, incidentally, has already been followed in two subsequent cases in England."
      I should have thought it inevitable that it would be followed, because the decision of the House of Lords in an English appeal is binding on all lower courts in England.
      Later the hon. Gentleman said:
      "Scots law at present relies on the general principle that, where a person is legitimated under a foreign legal system, he should be regarded as legitimate by Scots law only if the system is that of the country of the domicile. Clause 2, as it stands, restates this principle. But in the case to which I have already referred—the Indyka case—the House of Lords, for the first time, decided that the law of the domicile was not the only one to which the courts of this country might have regard in considering what the law governing the status—that is, the legal marital status—of a person should be."
      It is accordingly quite clear that it is the decision in Indyka which has induced the Government to depart from the perfectly understandable and very clear terms of the Bill as it was originally presented to us after passing through the House of Lords. My concern is that I do not believe that the decision in Indyka is likely to have any bearing on Scottish law, and that the Government
      1506
      are really being over-cautious in trying to leave the matter open for possible change in the law of Scotland. I understand that that was what the Minister was getting at when he said:
      "It is difficult to say what the full effect of this judgment will be on Scots law, particularly as it was given on appeal, admittedly to the House of Lords, from a decision of an English court. I am sure that neither we nor the Law Commission would care to predict how the law might develop from it in the long term. But what the Commission has said is that it would be unwise to enact in the Bill provisions such as those in the present Clause 2, which would not only prevent the Scottish courts from going as far as the House of Lords did in the Indyka case, but would inhibit any future development of the law which might flow from that decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 26th March, 1968; c. 7–8.]
      The Indyka case was a highly special case. It concerned a man who had acquired a domicile of choice in England but who had married before the war a Czech national. He was himself at that time a Czech national. He was subsequently divorced under Czechoslovak law by his first wife. He then remarried and when being divorced by his second wife—he has had a most unhappy matrimonial career—he pleaded that this second marriage was void because the first one had never been dissolved, and that the reason it had not been dissolved was because, by international private law, the law of England could not recognise the Czechoslovak decree which proceeded not on his domicile at the material time but on the nationality of the wife.
      It is true that the House of Lords departed in that case from the notion of domicile as being the governing feature in recognition of foreign decrees of divorce and accepted in that case the basis of nationality. But the Scottish Lord of Appeal in the House of Lords—Lord Reid—who delivered the leading speech, dissented from that view, basing his decision on a principle well recognised by the law of Scotland, certainly not on the basis of any principle of nationality.
      I doubt whether there is any likelihood of Scottish courts being influenced by that decision. Nor is there a reasonable likelihood of the House of Lords imposing that essentially English decision on the Scottish law on an appeal taken from the Scottish courts.
      It is not altogether correct to say that this is a new feature of English practice

      1507
      because, so far as I can see, the English courts have been departing for a number of years from the question of domicile as being the basis for recognition or for actions involving status and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said in Committee—unfortunately I could not be there to assist in this matter—a very substantial departure from principle was taken by the English court in the case in re "P" in 1965 because, in that case, the court assumed jurisdiction to pronounce an order in relation to the custody of a child notwithstanding the fact that the father was not domiciled in this country and that the child, being in Israel, was outwith the jurisdiction of the English court at the material time. The basis of the court's decision there was the basis of ordinary residence.
      I can say that this was a major departure as I see it from the principle of private international law because it went right in the face of what Professor Dicey in his book, "International Conflict of Law", seventh edition, said on page 390:
      "Domicile and not nationality is the relevant factor in determining jurisdiction."
      The court disregarded that and disregarded the English laws of authority. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, on page 583, specifically stated that they were not going to follow the Scottish courts in this matter.
      9.0 p.m.
      Just as the English court rejected the Scottish court in this matter, so the Scottish court in a recent case last year has rejected this English line of authority and that is the case of Oludimu, in 1967. Where the court was pressed to accept the departure followed in England in the case to which I have referred, the Scottish court adhered to the basic international private law proposition—this was also a custody case, nonetheless involving status—that only the court of the domicile of the spouses could deal with custody and no other court will interfere.
      I have referred at some length to these cases to underline the proposition that I am making, which is that I do not believe that such weight should have been attached by the Law Commission or the Government to the decision in Indyka and
      1508
      that it is unfortunate that for these reasons a perfectly clear provision with regard to the domicile of the parent at the date of the marriage as being the governing factor in a case of recognition of the foreign law relating to legitimation has been departed from, or has been sought to be departed from, and at the same time a difference emerged between the statutory provisions in the 1926 Act which applied to England, and what is intended to be applied here.
      I go on to deal with the actual provisions of Clause 5(2). What I am not at all sure about is that, even if the hon. Gentleman is right and he is seeking to leave this matter open, he is departing from the positive statement that the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage must be the governing factor because he wants to leave that open for the Scottish court, if so advised, to follow this English line of authority. I am not at all satisfied that he has done so. On my reading of subsection (2) the implication is clear that the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage will be the governing factor. The Clause says:
      "(2) Where after the commencement of this Act any person is legitimated under the law of a country or territory outside Scotland, the fact that the father of that person was at any time previous to his marriage to the mother of that person domiciled in a country or territory in which legitimation by subsequent marriage was not permitted by law shall not prevent the recognition of that person as being legitimated."
      It is at least a possible interpretation of the Clause that the implication, therefore, is that he must be so domiciled at the date of his subsequent marriage. The effect of these two Amendments is to focus attention on the one thing which the Government are seeking to rule out and that is the basic common law provision that there has to be domicile both at the date of the marriage and at the date of the birth. If these Amendments are accepted, the subsection will read—to paraphrase:
      "Where … any person is legitimated under the law of a foreign country … the fact that when that person was born the father of that person was … domiciled in a country … which … "
      That makes it clear that we are ruling out of consideration the question of the father's domicile at the date of birth and we are seeking to leave open at

      1509
      least the question of whether or not his domicile at the date of a marriage is a relevant consideration.
      The effect would be to clarify that position, but it would still leave in doubt the question as to whether or not the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage was the governing factor in deciding whether recognition to the foreign law should be granted. That, it seems to me, is a difficulty inherent in the whole Clause, and I am not at all sure that these Amendments get round it. They will at least draw attention to the fact, as is done in a more positive way in the English section, and as was done in a more positive way in the earlier Clause, that the domicile of the father at the date of birth is irrelevant. What we have to consider, if we have to consider it, is the domicile of the father at the date of the subsequent marriage.
      I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to develop these arguments at some length. It would have been difficult to make this point simply on a narrow construction of those Amendments. This was introduced at a very late stage, when I did not, with respect, think that it could be properly considered by the Committee. I am very grateful for the opportunity of making these observations.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I understand the reason for the hon. and learned Gentleman's exploring this at some length and I agree that these Amendments were put down in difficult circumstances. In the long months during which we appear to have been facing one another on various Committees, this was the one occasion on which the hon. and learned Gentleman was missing when it would have been most useful, from the point of view of our discussions, for him to have been present. He has quoted at great length what I said in Committee, therefore I need not explore the reasons for this particular Clause being put in. It was because of the effects of the Indyka case that we endeavoured to put down the Clause in the normal way. The present Clause says that if by the law of the foreign country in which the father of an illegitimate person is domiciled at the time of the
      1510
      marriage of his father to his mother that person is rendered legitimate, the Law of Scotland would also recognise that. But the Indyka ruling had the effect of opening up the possibility of other interpretations.
      I must make it clear that the purpose of the exercise is not in any sense to try to bring Scots law into line with English law. It is to set out the Scots law of legitimation with improvements as recommended by the Scots Law Commission. In this one we did not attempt to modify, as we did in other sections.
      The hon. Gentleman raised the question as to why we differed from England in the Legitimacy Act of 1926. The hon. Member said that international law developed from the Indyka case. Naturally cases have followed that but it has been taken as an important decision and is already beginning to have effect here, and it would be necessary for the English Act to be amended if it is to develop in the same way. We made these Amendments at the Committee stage in order to avoid the necessity of having to follow what might become a necessity for English law.
      On the question the hon. Member put as to whether in this Clause the implication would not clearly be that domicile was still the crucial factor, certainly domicile is a factor, but in a negative sense. We say that it "shall not prevent the recognition of that person as being legitimated." That is the difference: it leaves the question open for future development. I would have thought that that would have been fairly clear.
      There are one or two difficulties in these specific Amendments. I recognise that they are designed to replace the present general formula removing a possible requirement in the present law to look at the law of the father's domicile at any time previous to the marriage, with a precise formula removing the requirement to look at the law of the father's domicile at the time of the child's birth. It is possible, however, that the Amendments could have a more specific effect on the Clause.
      The purpose of the subsection is this. Scots law recognises foreign legitimations per subsequens matritmonium if the "proper law" of the father provides for the child's legitimation per subsequens matrimonium, and "proper law" raises a

      1511
      different difficulty not touched on by this particular Amendment. At present the Scottish courts regard the law of the country of domicile as the "proper law" for deciding matters of status of this kind. As originally drafted, the Bill required the Scottish courts to have regard to the law of domicile. But since there was the possibility that if this were left in the common law the courts of this country might get over some of the difficulties and hardships involved in a strict application of the law of domicile by having regard to some other law—for example, the question of nationality—
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the thin attendance in the House and the absence of hon. Members on the benches opposite during a discussion of important Scottish matters, I beg to draw attention to the fact that fewer than 40 Members are in the Chamber.
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
      House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
      9.12 p.m.
      Mr. Buchan: I was saying, before we were interrupted in that extraordinary way, that we felt that if the matter were left in the common law rather than in the statutory law the courts of this country might get over some of the difficulties and hardships involved in a strict application of the law of domicile. Therefore, questions of nationality and matters of status could arise. To get over the difficulty, we amended the Bill in Committee.
      I recognise the difficulty of removing the statutory requirements, but the question which then arises is: what is the "proper law" of the father at what time? Is it at the time of the marriage, at the time of the birth or even at the time of conception? The father might move from country to country so that his "proper law" might change between these events. If one "proper law" provided for legitimation and the other did not, would the Scottish courts recognise the child as legitimated or not?
      The present Scots law clearly requires the Scottish courts to have regard to the father's "proper law" at the time of the marriage. But it may also require the courts to have regard to the father's
      1512
      "proper law" at the time of the child's birth, or, more doubtfully, the child's conception, and to refuse to recognise the child as legitimated unless the "proper law" at each of those times provides for its legitimation. The purpose of the subsection, following what is done for domestic legitimations in Clause 1 and the recommendation of the Law Commission, is to establish for the future that these doubtful requirements regarding consideration of the "proper law" at the time of birth or conception will no longer apply. The Scottish courts will have regard only to the father's "proper law" at the time of the subsequent marriage.
      I accept that the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands may have wished to make the point, as he did to some extent, that, if what we are going is to remove the possible requirement that the courts should look at the "proper law" at the time of birth, we should say so instead of using the general phrase
      "any time previous to the marriage".
      We felt that the Opposition's Amendment should be resisted because it did not remove the possible requirement about time of conception. It may be that their view is correct, but I think that there would be agreement that it should not exist in future.
      The only question is whether the requirement has sufficient spectral existence to make it wise to ensure that it does not haunt the courts in future. The Government think that it has. They stand on the fact that the Law Commission felt it necessary to refer to it. Therefore, it is desirable to make sure by removing it. The sub-section as drafted does this, but the Amendment does not.
      With this brief explanation, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will accept the Clause as it stands and will withdraw what I regard as a probing Amendment.
      Mr. Wylie: I have heard it suggested that the common law in Scotland might require domicile at the date of birth, but I have never heard it suggested that domicile at the date of conception was seriously taken as a factor governing recognition of the foreign law.
      This is a matter for the Minister to decide and he has taken a decision. Where a section reads, as this does, that the

      1513
      domicile at a certain date prior to the marriage is not to be relevant, there is a statutory implication—and I am not sure that the courts would not put this construction upon it—that that means domicile at the date of the marriage, which is in accordance with existing common law principles. The difficulty is that if, contrary to what I have said, the Scottish courts move away from domicile—I do not think they are likely to do that—to some other criterion in divorce or custody matters, for example, such as residence or nationality, none the less their hands would be tied in legitimation proceedings by the terms of the section.
      A matter of this complexity is not something to be developed at this time of night. It is not for the Opposition to take upon themselves responsibility for this kind of a change. I have listened to what the Minister has said. I am not satisfied, but it is a matter for the Government to decide. In the light of these observations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

  FOREIGN COMPENSATION (EGYPTIAN CLAIMS)
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move,
  That the Foreign Compensation Commission (Egyptian Claims) (Amendment) Rules Approval Instrument 1968 (S.I. 1968, No. 163), dated 8th February 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be withdrawn.
  My hon. Friends and I have put down this Prayer for three principal reasons. First, because we wish to discover from the Solicitor-General why the Commission wants and needs these new rules or new powers. On their face they seem to be extremely far reaching. Therefore, it is right that the House should understand fully why they are necessary.
  Secondly, we seek assurances from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the
  1514
  new rules which this Statutory Instrument would introduce, Rule 21A and also paragraphs (5) and (6) which are to be added to Rule 38, will not result in depriving British subjects of the opportunity of claiming compensation for the seizure of their own or their predecessor's property by the Egyptian Government during the period 1956 to 1969.
  As is obvious, this is a highly technical Measure and the debate is bound to be somewhat narrow. However, there is a third reason why we have caused the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to the House tonight. I understand that this is the first occasion on which any Instrument under the Foreign Compensation Rules has been prayed against in the House. It is right that the Government should know that we on this side are vigilant in studying these many Instruments and in ensuring that the House is made aware of the reasons for them.
  I will mention a little of the history of the Egyptian claims, which is indeed rather sad. It gives some idea of the number of people involved if I say that within a year of the appropriations and sequestrations in Egypt more than 8,000 British citizens are known to have been evacuated. Of those 1,160 had to be assisted with house purchase under the compensation terms, about 1,700 had to be assisted with furnishing their homes, and 1,803 were assisted with passages to Australia. That illustrates that this small and narrow Order deals with a lot of intensely human cases. The losses were suffered, though the compensation provided is of some assistance, were great indeed, and I think that it will be for the convenience of the House to state the manner in which the Commission dealt with these losses.
  Broadly, there were two categories, those assets which were Egyptianised, namely, nationalised or confiscated, and which there was no opportunity for the British nationals concerned to get back. Secondly, those assets which were sequestrated, namely, seized for what was presumed to be a temporary period, and which were returned, though often in an extremely damaged condition. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, large sums were involved. Under the Part III claims, which are mentioned in the Order, the total valuation of the claims

  1515
  made by applicants was about £65 million, and under Article 6, claims, of which there were a total of 5,300, altogether added up to a further £34 million.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the claims themselves or their size. We are amending the procedure for making claims.
  Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was attempting to indicate the background to the Instrument so that it would be more comprehensible when I came to the point which you have just made. Perhaps I should just say that the compensation arrangements, of which this Order is the most recent, started with the March, 1959, Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. It was followed by the Exchange of Notes in 1962, since when there has been a further Exchange of Notes, in 1967.
  I understand from the Commission that it already has disposed of about 4,000 claims. The purpose of the Order is to enable the Commission to put a term to the outstanding claims that remain, in effect it imposes a deadline. The new Rule, No. 21A says that a man's decease shall abate any claim that he or his beneficiaries might have, and the only way in which this extinction of his claim can be avoided is for the claimant specifically to assign his claim through his estate. Thereafter, according to the Instrument, unless the beneficiary produces this assignment in evidence to the Commission, and signs the original application in place of the deceased, that claim may be lost for ever.
  Within limits, we can accept that. It is not unknown in the English common law for claims to be extinguished with the death of the original party. But I believe that we ought to be very careful about agreeing to the extinction of claims made by British citizens for losses suffered through no fault of their own. Perhaps I might put this in human terms. Let us suppose that I had stolen a piece of property belonging to one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's elderly relatives. Let us suppose, too, that that elderly relative had the misfortune to die before he was able to get back that property from me. I am sure that the Solicitor-General would take a very poor view of it if he were told that his claim to recover his
  1516
  family property from me had been extinguished by the death of his relative.
  I doubt whether it would satisfy him if the only way in which he could re-institute the claim was if his relative had specifically granted it to him, and if he then were to fill in a lot of forms from the Commission. But this is what the Rules will require British claimants for Egyptian compensation to do.
  At the very least, this should not happen unless the Commission has exhausted every possibility of advising those concerned of the possible loss of claim and of what they must do still to maintain it. It should surely be the duty of the Commission, and not of the potential beneficiary, to take such steps as are necessary to warn all concerned that a claim might be lost through death.
  I turn to the further provision for reviving claims once the deadline has passed. In case anyone with a claim should read this debate, I draw their attention to the operative dates. Assuming that the Rules are accepted by the House, any survivor of an applicant for compensation who wishes to continue that claim must do so right away. In three months, that is, after 4th June this year, it may be too late. Further, if a family suffers the death of someone who lost his property in Egypt, that family should promptly put in the claim to continue his suit. They will have only six months' grace: if they have not filed their claim by then, they will forfeit it altogether.
  I have some questions about the three months' and six months' deadlines contained in the second paragraph of Rule 21A. It says that an application can be revived only with the leave of not fewer than two Commissioners
  "… who may grant or refuse leave at their absolute discretion."
  I realise that there are precedents and that there may be good reasons for this, but language giving two Commissioners the right to grant or refuse leave "at their absolute discretion" is not the happiest of phrases in a British democracy. If the Commissioners have the right to give leave to an applicant, surely that power in itself should be sufficient. I should like an explanation of why this absolute discretion was specifically necessary. I do not believe that anyone should have absolute discretion unless the reason is explained to the House.

  1517
  Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please tell us why it is necessary for the Commissioners and the Commissioners alone to have the power either to accept or reject a late claim? Second, what kind of circumstances must they take into consideration in deciding whether or not to entertain such a claim? The House should know, if they are given absolute discretion, what sort of considerations they have in mind in exercising it. There should be some criteria so that we know what they will take into account and what they will ignore in terminating what might be someone's only remaining claim.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will also tell us, what the Rules do not tell us, namely, how these considerations should apply. The Commissioners, I believe, need guidance here.
  I turn now to the powers in the latter part of paragraph (5), by which the Commission can review and I think finally terminate or settle a claim. Indeed, the Rules are intended to enable the Commissioners to bring claims to a term. Apparently this will be done—I gather that this will be the position under the new paragraph (5)—in some circumstances without the Commission needing to serve notice of its intention to do so. I cannot understand why the Commissioners should be relieved of the requirement to indicate their intention to settle a claim.
  I cannot see why they should not publish this information or take such steps open to them to advise the persons concerned. Surely they should announce a intention to extinguish a British claim—that is what it may amount to in some cases—at least by inserting an advertisement in the newspapers. They should not be able to extinguish it behind closed doors and without having given any indication of what they propose to do or what they have done.
  When the House provides new powers and accepts new rules which will concern many ordinary citizens—many people who have lost everything and have probably obtained a very small proportion in return by way of compensation—we should not leave them having to look up all the detailed proceedings of Parliament and themselves accepting responsibility of becoming aware of the new rules and regulations.
  1518
  These are, in the main, elderly people, often unwell. Frequently the relatives of the deceased may have gone abroad. As I mentioned earlier, some may have gone to Australia. Probate may in some cases last for a very long time indeed. So in view of the three and six months' deadlines, the Commission itself should accept the responsibility of advising all concerned. The Instrument should not simply leave it to the individual whose circumstances could be difficult, to have to come forward in all cases. I therefore ask the Solicitor-General to indicate to the Commission that there is great concern about this matter and that the House expects it to take the onus of responsibility.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: The Instrument is unfortunate, largely for the reasons so ably given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). Hon. Members may recall that I have a personal interest in this matter, having raised two Adjournment debates and asked many Questions in the last 10 years on the subject of Egyptian compensation, largely because a number of my friends and some relatives are directly concerned. I will do my best to stay in order, despite the narrow terms of the Instrument, although some of the rules must be interpreted in relation to what has gone before.
  New Rule 21A entitled "Death of Applicant" states:
  "On the death of an Applicant his application is abated as regards any claim not determined before his death unless the claim survives to a joint Applicant."
  It goes on in paragraph (2) to point out that
  "… an abated applicant may be revived by the personal representative of the deceased Applicant …"
  and refers to the signing of the application form. I do not think that anybody need object to that because it is the procedure now being followed. Later, paragraph (2) refers to:
  "… the expiration of 6 months from the date of the deceased Applicant or 3 months from the date of the coming into operation of this Rule …"
  It goes on to say that after that period of time an application can
  "… be revived only with the leave of not less than two Commissioners…"
  and they are given absolute discretion.

  1519
  It is in this connection that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised two important issues. The first was the question of the six-months' deadline. One must here consider the historical background to the Instrument to prove that the six-months' period is far too short. The whole question of compensation arose out of the Suez incident way back in 1956, but I remind the Solicitor-General that in the following year the House was told that the rights of British subjects to compensation were positively safeguarded because there was £108 million of blocked Egyptian sterling in this country which would not be released until the rights of British citizens to compensation were agreed between the two Governments. In 1959 came the first agreement, and it released all that blocked sterling less that paid into the compensation fund.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must limit his remarks to the very narrow Instrument that we are discussing. He cannot discuss compensation in general.
  Mr. Wall: I am trying to show this background relates to a period of six months referred to in the Instrument. If we look briefly at the history of the whole question of compensation to which the Instrument relates, that will, I hope, prove to the House that six months is far too short a period. I am trying to prove that since 1956, in a period of 12 years, we still have not elucidated these claims, yet some are now to be extinguished in six months. I shall attempt to do this as briefly as possible and I am sure that you will call me to order if I go outside the scope of the debate. I shall not go into details.
  The first agreement was reached in 1959, and before the agreement could be implemented, in 1961, much of the property some of which we are concerned with in this instrument, was resequestrated by the Egyptian Government.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not without sympathy with the general line which the hon. Member wishes to pursue but he cannot pursue the general issue on this Instrument, which deals with the narrow point, as he knows as well as the Chair does what happens if the applicant is deceased.
  Mr. Wall: May I then say, Mr. Speaker. that it has taken 12 years for some of these claims to come forward and some are still not dealt with; yet we are asked to extinguish certain claims within six months. The period stated in Rule 21A (2) is far too short. We are dealing in some cases with substantial sums and there is no safeguard to the decision of the Commissioners. The Statutory Instrument lays down quite clearly that it is at the sole discretion of the Commissioners whether to grant or refuse leave. There should surely be some appeal. The Commissioners are given very great power. Many of these applicants reside in different parts of the world. I have letters from Switzerland, America, South America and Australia. It may be that they do not know that the persons concerned have died. The facts may not have been published in newspapers and it may be virtually impossible to let those concerned know the facts.
  Six months is a very short period; I should have thought a year should be the very minimum. I appreciate that we cannot amend a Statutory Instrument such as this, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure us that the Commissioners will interpret this regulation very widely indeed and very generously. I know of a number of cases which have been delayed for many months. That is not the applicants' fault but became inevitable because of the actions and reactions of the Egyptian Government in resequestrating property.
  Under Rule 38 in paragraphs (2), (5) and (6), in contrast to the rule we have been discussing, no time limit is laid down. The period is virtually as the Commissioners see fit. It says that the Commissioner may review
  "without serving any notice of intention to review, or may, if they think fit, by order …"
  The Commissioners can act immediately. That seems to be in strange contrast to the previous Rule. I think this is dangerous. I like it as little as I like the first Rule we have discussed. Here I want to ask if we are discussing something which is purely theoretical, or has it some substance? Is there still sufficient money in the fund to pay the claims we are debating? I understand that, according to the Foreign Compensation Commissioners, the fund at the moment

  1521
  amounts to £34,500,000 of which £28,500,000 has been paid in claims. I understand that only some £6 million is left.
  According to the Foreign Compensation Committee, 2,000 claims are still outstanding. We may be engaged in a very theoretical argument, but I would lake assurance from the Solicitor-General when he winds up that compensation called for under the Rules we have been discussing will be met, and that the £6 million is sufficient to cover the 2,000 outstanding claims, on which I have some doubts. He will recall that most of the claims which we are discussing are for compensation for damage to property which was sequestrated by the Egyptian Government. What about damage to property which was re-sequestrated by the Egyptian Government under Proclamation 138 in 1961?
  Mr. Speaker: We are concerned with claims where the applicant has died. The hon. Member is, I think, aware of this.
  Mr. Wall: To come back to the details of Rule 38, I suggest that the person whom the Commission may appoint to represent the estate of the deceased under the Rule should be authorised also to receive any increase in a previous award which may be payable as a result of such a review. A case in point is where the administrator of the estate has died, having distributed all the assets, and where, on review, an increase has been made in the original award. The Commission would not pay this unless a grant were obtained, and the cost of obtaining a grant would be more than the increased award. May I suggest that, where small sums are involved, the Commission should have discretion to pay out to the recipient under the Rule. This is perhaps a broad interpretation of the Clause which I hope would be justified.
  May I sum up by saying that compensation has been under discussion for 12 years. Many people still have not had their claims met. Some property has only just been released. The Instrument we are discussing in some ways makes it more difficult for the applicant. In certain circumstances he needs fuller information, and he has a very short
  1522
  period in which to file the necessary documents. Therefore, although the Instrument will make the life of the Foreign Compensation Commission easier, it could make life more difficult for some applicants.
  I hope that we can have a clear assurance that the terms of the Order will be interpreted as widely and as leniently as possible by the Commission, bearing in mind our objection to the six months period and the great power given to the Commission to accept or to refuse without the right of appeal.
  9.43 p.m.
  Sir Charles Mott-Radelyffe: Those hon. Members who have been in the House for some time, as have my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and myself, will recollect the debates which have taken place during the last ten years about this very complex issue. Although the Prayer is rightly on very narrow grounds, to keep within the rule of order, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he replies for the Government will not assume, because the debate is technically on narrow grounds, that it does not affect a great many people, or that there is not a very big human element in what we are discussing and in the details of the Order against which we are Praying, because this is not so.
  There is all the technical difficulties, of which this is the end product, of British subjects in Egypt who had their property or assets either Egyptianised, sequestrated or re-sequestrated. This has caused a difficult tangle, and long hours have been spent trying to sort it out. Many applicants got nothing, though some got something, and I would pay tribute to the Commission for the way in which it has tried to deal with this very complicated matter. It has been approached in an extremely humane fashion—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hate to appear ungenerous in preventing the tribute which the hon. Gentleman wishes to pay, but it is out of order on this Prayer.
  Sir C. Mott-Radelyffe: I bow to your Ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. But, with the greatest respect, I was about to say that I thought that the Commission

  1523
  had dealt with hardship cases in a very humane way, but that I am not sure that the Order enables it to go on dealing with them in the same manner. I was coming on to the case where the claimant dies and, with great respect, I would have thought that that was in order.
  As regards a claim which is extinguished on the death of the applicant, under Rule 21A there is a period of six months in one case and three months in the other. I must ask the hon. and 'earned Gentleman, who has considerable experience and for whom we have a high regard, whether he thinks that a period of three or six months is fair. After all, the Inland Revenue, with all its resources, is roughly two and a half years behind in computing Capital Gains Tax and will be about four years behind in trying to sort out the nonsense of Selective Employment Tax, which are simple matters compared with these cases, because the rules are well known.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said, many claimants live abroad. Others may have changed their addresses many times in the last 10 years. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman quite certain that the Commission has an up-to-date list of addresses?
  Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say how many claimants are still left who might be involved in this Order? Then, what steps is he proposing to take to notify claimants about the very short time available in the light of this Order, that their claims could still be valid in the unhappy event of their death? Hon. Members have a great many facilities behind them. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a panoply of law officers behind him. However, it is not easy even for us to sort out such a complicated Order as this. How, in three or six months, can the beneficiaries of an old man who may have moved abroad, who may be living in the Channel Islands, or who may have gone for a holiday with relatives say even in India, catch up on all this paraphernalia?
  My hon. and learned Friend must be fair and tell us why there is some magic in the three-month and six-month periods. Whatever view we may have
  1524
  of the origin of the Egyptian claims, those who suffered through no fault of their own should be entitled to fair treatment and clear information on a technical subject which may well affect their beneficiaries.
  9.50 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Walters: I intervene briefly to make two points. As has been emphasised, and as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is a very narrow Instrument. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) has, I believe, so rightly said, while it is a very narrow Instrument, it is one which covers a wide spectrum of human feelings and considerable suffering. Having studied the Instrument and having heard the excellent speech in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) introduced the Prayer, I would like to emphasise that it really should be encumbent on the Commissioners to make known to the people who may be affected, that a claim will lapse unless they follow the procedures which are being laid down by this new Rule. Particularly bearing in mind its restrictive aspects, namely, that after only six months from the date of the death of an applicant, or three months from the coming into operation of the Rule, an application may be revived only with the leave of the two Commissioners who may grant or refuse leave "at their absolute discretion".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has pointed out, this absolute discretion which is vested in the two Commissioners is not one which, from a Parliamentary point of view, is entirely satisfactory or attractive. I hope that in his reply the Solicitor-General will deal with this point specifically. Of course, at the end of the day a great deal depends on what good will exists, and I would only say, having recently returned from Egypt, that one of the few encouraging aspects in the Middle East is the greatly improved feeling between that country and Britain. I hope that against this new climate of opinion the rights of British nationals will be protected and upheld. We are waiting to hear from the Solicitor-General how these rights are to be protected or improved in regard to the points that have been specifically raised tonight.
  9.53 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): This is an important matter and is true that we are dealing here with a subject in which very human factors arise and where any proper approach to the problem involves the most careful consideration of that aspect. I am grateful both to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for the manner in which he has raised this, and to the other hon. Gentlemen opposite who have dealt with it in such an understanding and helpful way.
  The background of this matter is that the Instrument which it is prayed to annul approves Rules made by the Foreign Compensation Commission which have the effect, first of all, of abating claims on the death of an applicant unless there is a surviving joint applicant, and then of enabling abated claims to be revived by the deceased person's representative within six months of the date of death or three months of the Rule coming into operation, whichever is the later; and thereafter, after the six months' period has expired, by leave o two or more Commissioners; and to enable the Commission to review provisional determinations of claims of deceased applicants where no personal representatives have come forward. A similar Instrument was made on the same date, Statutory Instrument 1968 No. 164, in respect of other than Egyptian claims. No Prayer has been laid against that Instrument. I mention that only to show the possibly anomalous situation which would arise if this Instrument were annulled.
  The Foreign Compensation Commission was set up by the Foreign Compensation Act of 1950 to register and determine claims in respect of losses to British property, rights and interests resulting from measures taken by foreign Governments, and to distribute compensation funds made available by those Governments under agreements with Her Majesty's Government.
  A considerable amount of work still remains over Egyptian claims. Under the 1950 Act, the Lord Chancellor appoints the Commissioners, who consist of a chairman, a vice-chairman and five members, all legally qualified. I mention that because the qualification and status
  1526
  of these Commissioners is of considerable importance when one considers how this affair is being administered and what powers the Rules grant.
  Orders in Council give the Commission jurisdiction to register and determine claims and to distribute the funds. It makes its own rules for procedure, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor—
  Mr. Wall: The hon. and learned Gentleman has twice mentioned funds. Can he satisfy us that there are sufficient funds to meet these claims?
  The Solicitor-General: I think that there will be, if there is not now, a sufficiency under the existing law.
  Until these Rules were laid, there was no provision regulating the procedure when an applicant for compensation died before his claim was adjudicated. It may be thought that that was a defect in the system. I would have thought that, while taking into account the importance of every considerateness for the treatment of these claims, some kind of winding up procedure, some fair and just method, was desirable. The practice has been for the Commission to mark the case papers "abated by death" and to treat the claim as revived only on the production of a grant of probate or letters of administration or confirmation in the United Kingdom and by the executor or administrator counter-signing the application form originally signed by the deceased.
  The Commissioners observed no time limit for the revival of claims and the effect was that a last-minute application to revive an abated claim might delay final distribution of the funds for a considerable time. The need for provisions to come into effect on the death of persons interested in proceedings is recognised in our domestic law in the procedures of both the Supreme Court and the county court. This Instrument attempts to put into effect an analagous provision with like purposes. In principle, it is desirable that this should be done, but it must be remembered that the proceedings before the Commission differ markedly from those in the ordinary courts, particularly in a relevant respect—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Foreign Compensation and on the Order of the Day relating to the Clean Air Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
  Question again proposed.
  The Solicitor-General: I was putting to the House that the difference between the matters with which the Commission has to deal and the matters with which the courts have to deal where a claimant is deceased has a bearing on the kind of requirement suggested by hon. Members opposite, that is, the question of notifying parties of their rights. It is an important aspect of the matter. Whereas in civil proceedings in our courts information about the death of a party normally comes from other parties to the suit, in the cases with which the Commission is concerned that cannot happen, because there are no other parties. This is a real and practical point of distinction.
  In many cases applicants live and are domiciled abroad, and news of the death is less likely to reach the Commission than would be the case if it were an ordinary court. That is the reason for the need for the substantive provisions in Amending Rule 2(1). I emphasise that because I believe that there is a real difficulty facing the Commission in these cases of ascertaining what the event is, who are the persons affected, and to whom, if any process of notification were desirable in theory, notification should be directed.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I have been trying to follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If there is the difficulty, which I accept, of information about the death of a claimant living abroad reaching the Commission, surely it is an argument above all others for having a period much longer than six or three months? The Solicitor-General is advancing the very argument we have been advancing against Rule 21A in the Instrument.
  The Solicitor-General: I shall deal later with the question of the six months.
  The need for the new Rule 38(6) in Amending Rule 2(2) is also due to these circumstances. The procedure of the Commission provides first for a preliminary determination and then for a review. An applicant may die after the
  1528
  preliminary determination and before the review. It is the Commission's practice to give notice of intention to review and of any proposal to disallow or reduce the amount of the claim allowed at the preliminary determination. It is desirable to guard against any suggestion that a notice sent to the last known address of an applicant who is dead—unknown to the Commission—is not good service.
  It may be urged that because of the time it has taken to determine the Egyptian claims deaths are likely to have occurred, and that it is unfair in these circumstances to put additional difficulties in the way of those representing the estates of deceased applicants. That factor should be borne in mind.
  The Instrument relating to the Egyptian claims was made in April 1959. Considerable difficulty has been encountered in adjudicating some claims because of the unco-operative attitude of the Egyptian authorities, the necessity of withdrawing the Commission's representative in Egypt owing to the political situation, and similar matters. Seventy-four Egyptian claims have been marked "abated" and not revived. This is a very large number compared with the claims affected by losses sustained in Hungary and Roumania.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the learned Solicitor-General cannot go any further than the Instrument. What is fair for one side is fair for the other.
  The Solicitor-General: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) were being borne in mind. But it is not enough to do that. What does the Commission do? What we are asking is not just that it will accept all the difficulties. We are pressing it to tell those still alive to make proper provision in their wills so that their successors shall be able to continue their claims. Surely that is not too much to ask.
  The Solicitor-General: Under the heading of what the Commission can do, I would say that what is provided here is that, on the death of an applicant, the application, unless there is a revived joint

  1529
  application, abates. The abated application may be revived by the personal representative who proves such representation. After six months from the death of the applicant, an application may be revived only with the leave of two or more Commissioners.
  I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor—the sufficiency or otherwise of the six months' period. It is not as if we are arguing about a period on the expiry of which a claim is extinguished. This is the heart of the matter. If there was any possibility of the extinction of a claim at the expiry of a period as short as six months, I would feel a great deal of sympathy with the critics. But that is not the provision of this Instrument. What happens is that at that point, when the six months have expired, there is, by this Instrument, required to be the leave of the Commissioners before it can be revived. That is a very different thing from a once-for-all extinction of a right. I ask the House to bear that in mind.
  That would be the substance of my defence of the six-months' provision, and put it to the House as a substantial point. The Commissioners, who are to determine at the end of a six-months' lapse whether a claim is going to be revived are, as I have indicated, qualified men, lawyers, appointees of the Lord Chancellor, and they can be relied upon because of their background and status to deal fairly with these matters. It would not be right for me to seek to draw up a category of criteria which would be regarded as appropriate to apply, but, of course, the Commission is well able to weigh the factors which may explain delay beyond a period of six months in bringing to its notice the death of an applicant and the appointment of personal representatives. They will have to have regard to these factors as practical men, a id I suggest that the right way of dealing with the problem is to place reliance upon the Commission in the fashion which this proposal does.
  Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: We are not getting down to the core of this. I am not a lawyer but the Solicitor-General is. Could he indicate for my benefit, and I suspect for the benefit of a lot of hon. and not learned Members on both sides of the House, what sort of circumstances could there be which would render a
  1530
  claim perfectly valid during the lifetime of a claimant, invalid in the judgment of the two Commissioners, who appear to have an absolutely undisputed discretion, after six months or nine months or a year, when the claim was put in by the beneficiary?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman, whose fairness in controversy I have come to recognise over the years, will recognise the difficulties that one is in if one is invited to deal with hypothetical cases. It is a real difficulty. What I am suggesting is that when a period of time of as much as six months elapses, then it is entirely appropriate for a body like the Commission to have special regard to anything in the character of an endeavour to revive a claim. It will not be unsympathetic or hostile, it will merely take account—and that was why I mentioned that they are qualified and experienced men and appointed by the Lord Chancellor—of that fact as a relevant circumstance, that this amount of time at least has passed and in the circumstances it is as well, because the Instrument does not put it higher, that they should have the opportunity of checking and investigating and approving.
  I cannot pursue that point much further, save to suggest to the House that on the whole this is not unreasonable. I place my reliance in defending this provision in the Statutory Instrument upon the point I made earlier, namely, that we are not at the end of six months having anything to do with the extinction of the claim—we are only taking that period as a period at the expiry of which a proper safeguard should apply.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With the greatest respect, the claim is extinguished on death. At the end of six months it can only be revived with the discretion of the Commissioners. There is no question of it being extinguished, it abates with the death of the applicant. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with that point.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not know if we want to split hairs on the difference between "extinction" and "abatement". If there has been an abatement the thought behind the Instrument is that if as many as six months have expired, then it is not unreasonable that there should be a reference to the Commission before

  1531
  revival. That is all. This would be considered sympathetically, fairly and reasonably by the Commission.
  The point that remains for me to deal with, among the serious points brought forward by the other side of the House, is as to whether or not the Commission can do anything further than is proposed to notify persons concerned, because that is what it comes to—persons who may be personal representatives—of their rights. All that I can say in that connection is that in the world of practical affairs it will be an extraordinarily difficult thing for the Commission to do.
  There again the same perfectly valid consideration applies. If, after the expiry of the period, there was a final extinguishment of a right to compensation, then indeed it might be appropriate to resort, even in the most difficult circumstances, to some fairly elaborate process—because it would have to be elaborate—of notification. But that is not the situation here, and the practical difficulty that would confront the Commission in learning of the death of an applicant living in any part of the world and, not only that, but in ascertaining additionally what was the development of his affairs on his decease, is a very real obstacle in the way of any procedure by way of notification by the Commission. As I say, it might be necessary to resort to some elaborate procedure to overcome that difficulty if, during the period, there was a final extinguishment of a claim; but when that factor is not present it is quite appropriate, I suggest, that the order take the form it does.
  Mr. Wall: In view of all these difficulties both as regards notification and time, and in order that justice may be seen to be done, as I have no doubt it will be done, would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider a final appeal to the Minister in the event of a disputed case.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not think I can answer that question affirmatively. I am satisfied with the fairness of this provision as it stands and I think there must and probably should be reliance upon the Commission in this matter.
  The considerations that I have put forward as applying to the first part of this Statutory Instrument apply in like measure to the rest of it because the In
  1532
  strument goes on to provide that if an applicant dies and no grant of representation has been produced, the Commission may review the provisional determination of a claim without serving notice, or may by order appoint some person to represent the estate. This again is designed to ensure that no case goes by default. This is a provision which has the express object and effect of doing justice to applicants, to people who have suffered loss.
  Here again, I suggest that the proper course is to place dependence on the discretion and fairness of the Commission. That element is fundamental to this whole procedure: I do not conceal that for a moment. In this procedure there is the greatest dependence upon the Commission, and I feel that the House need have no anxiety on that score. Hon. Members can be confident that the Commission will treat these matters with care and consideration, and the more so because of the opinions that have been ventilated in the House tonight on this important issue.
  I trust that, bearing all these facts in mind, the House will determine not to annul this Instrument.
  Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker rose—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Speaker: It is usual for hon. Members to intervene before the Minister has replied.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I have followed the debate with great care, particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). I do not think that the Solicitor-General has given anything like an adequate reply to the points raised in all sincerity from this side of the House.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having raised this matter in, I hope, a non-contumacious and serious fashion, we expected from the Solicitor-General a more serious reply to our points. He did his best, and, as we all know, his best can be very good, but he did not deal with one or two points, which the House will regret.
  There is, first, a very practical point. If there is difficulty in tracing those who might be able to continue a claim after

  1533
  the decease of their relatives, what is so difficult about the Commission now advising all those still alive whose claims it has entertained that, should they die before their claims are settled, they should ensure that their will contains a grant of their claim to their possible inheritors and advising them of the procedures to be followed within the three or six months period so that difficulty does not arise? I cannot see why the Commission should not send out a simple letter, following the passage of this Instrument, advising all concerned what has happened. The Solicitor-General did not deal with that point, which concerns a matter of elementary justice.
  We on this side of the House have the greatest admiration for the Commission, and anyone who has considered, as I have had the pleasure of doing in the last few days, the humanity and care which it devotes to individual cases will have no doubt about its ability and solicitude. But the fact remains that to vest in any body of fallible men "absolute discretion" is quite unlike anything else we do in this country. I am not a lawyer, but I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can tell the House to which other body of civil servants we give absolute discretion.
  It is not satisfactory for the Solicitor-General to say, "The Lord Chancellor appointed them and they are lawyers"—for that, in effect, is what he said. I can think of many people who are lawyers and who are appointed by Ministers of the Crown for whom I have very little regard. It simply is not sufficient for the hon. and learned Gentleman to use that as the basis for the belief that in all cases these determinations will be made correctly. He should tell us why absolute discretion is required for this body of men when we give it to no other.
  The third point with which the Solicitor-General did not deal is that there is no requirement on the Commissioners, when, under paragraph 5, they finally terminate a claim, to serve any notice of intention. For a claim to be extinguished or determined in private by a body of men with absolute discretion without any requirement that they shall notify what they are doing and give notice of their intention to review is quite wrong. This means that actions are being
  1534
  taken behind closed doors without any need to indicate why they reach certain decisions within their absolute discretion or to give notice of intention and with powers to appoint some person unknown to the public, but known only to themselves, to represent the persons concerned. These are quite extraordinary powers.
  While we recognise that the Commission is most careful and humane in all it does, the Solicitor-General has not told us why these extraordinary powers are given. Would he assure us that the Commission will advise all those whose claims are pending that, in the event of their decrease, this Statutory Instrument will require procedures to be adopted different from those in existence prior to its passage?
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Cooke.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I detect a certain note of reluctance in your voice, Mr. Speaker, in calling me. However, I have no intention of making a speech at this stage. I merely comment that this is exempted business and there is nothing in our procedure to prevent the Government giving a more adequate reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) who asked reasonable questions from the Despatch Box. We are prepared to wait until the Government give us reasonable replies. I add my protest to those of my hon. Friends.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  Question put and negatived.

  FOREIGN COMPENSATION (EGYPTIAN CLAIMS)
    Mr. Elystan Morgan discharged from the Select Committee on Agriculture; Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
    Mr. Urwin discharged from the Estimates Committee; Mr. Macdonald added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
    Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies discharged from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments; Mr. Albert Booth added.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

  CLEAN AIR BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28th March]:
  That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Maxwell.]
  Question again proposed.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps in a slightly more congenial and relaxed atmosphere we can pass to this business. In view of the exemption proposed by the Government and accepted by the House we can deploy our arguments at leisure, though I hope at not too great length, in exploring the mind of the Government as to why this special privilege is being extended to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) relating his Private Member's Bill.
  I have nothing against the hon. Member for Buckingham and, for all I know, I have nothing against his Bill; but I have considerable reservations about giving special facilities to a Private Member's Bill when I see so many other worthy Measures attempting to proceed through the House and falling victim to the many ups and downs of our procedures. I am not sure why the hon. Member should be singled out, but I hope that by the end of this discussion we shall discover the reason.
  I am sure that we are all in favour of clean air. We want cleaner air, cleaner food, cleaner books and cleaner newspapers. But how to do it and whether the House should give special facilities in particular cases is a matter of some doubt.
  There are already a considerable number of Amendments down for the Standing Committee stage of the Bill and we are now asked to give facilities for the Bill to come back and be considered in Committee of the whole House. Before giving our vote in this matter we should consider whether the Amendments which we are asked to consider in the House, because presumably they will be the same as or similar to those in the Standing Committee, are of a wrecking or obstructive nature, are of a worth-while and exploratory kind, or are perhaps inspired by the Government. On looking through
  1536
  them I think all will agree that they are a varied selection coming from a wide variety of sources. One particularly, new Clause No. 3, would appear to be directly at the inspiration of the Ministry of Transport—
  Mr. Speaker: We are not in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House on the Clean Air Bill. The hon. Member can argue only why the Bill should not be taken in Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. Cooke: I just wished to acquaint the House, if it was not already acquainted, with the fact that there are a large number of Amendments, with which the House would be likely to be faced if it allowed the Bill to go to Committee of the whole House, as the Motion asks that it should. I will not, of course, go any further into the nature of the Amendments, except to say that they are not all of a constructive kind by any means. I see that the last line of my notes says we could not possibly discuss them now, and I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
  However, we are entitled to know why we are being asked to take the Bill in Committee of the whole House, and whether the same situation would occur in Committee of the whole House as would have occurred in the Standing Committee, because it would have been a Standing Committee of private Members on a Private Member's Bill. I think we are entitled to hear from the Patronage Secretary, whom I see in his place—or his deputy whom I see beside him, with a number of other Ministers—whether they would propose to allow the Bill facilities on the Floor of the House and in Committee of the whole House, and whether the Whips will be on or off. I think we are entitled to an answer before we go any further with our proceedings. Will there be a free vote of private Members participating, or is this to be an occasion when the Government take over a Measure, put on the Whips, and see that the Bill gets through because of their admittedly dwindling but still substantial majority? I pause for a moment in the hope that the Patronage Secretary or his deputy will leap to his feet to give us an answer to that question.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): I can give an answer to the hon. Gentleman, I think fairly reasonably. The Government are not concerned with the merits or demerits of the Bill. Their reasons for looking rather warmly on the Motion are primarily reasons which I would hope o give in a short while.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend speaking as Member for Deptford, as Patronage Secretary, as Chief Whip, or Deputy Leader of the House?
  Mr. Silkin: I think I may be allowed to say that on this occasion I was asked in my capacity as Patronage Secretary, not in my capacity as Deputy Leader of the House.
  Mr. Cooke: I am sure we would ask the right hon. Gentleman in any one of his many capacities in order to get the answer we require. He said he was looking warmly on the Motion. He looks warmly on almost everything we ask him. I have never seen him scowl in the House, though sometimes he seems to be the victim of the wiles and influences of his colleagues, and some rather unpleasant things have happened as the result of his actions in the House, though perhaps he did not intend them to be so, when some of us have found our speeches or debates truncated as the result of his activities. At any rate, I am delighted to hear that I have succeeded in my intervention and to know we are going to have an explanation from the Deputy Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary or the right hon. Member for Deptford.
  There is only one last observation I want to make. It would appear that this Motion is put down late at night on the last day before a well-earned Recess when it might possibly have slipped through unnoticed by the House, and perhaps it is the intention of the Government that the further proceedings on the Bill should slip through unnoticed. I do not know. We should like to know whether it is really a Government Bill, because it would be helpful to know whether the Government will in future produce a series of "certificated" Private Members' Bills, so, if a private
  1538
  Member who was low on the list chose to take a beatifully drafted Bill from a Government Department, he would be assured of Government help. This might result in many worthy Measures reaching that Statute Book, but it might mean that the Government got their business through in the guise of Private Members' Bills, to which, no doubt, my hon. Friends would object. At least we would know where were were. The present system, with some Bills smiled upon and some frowned upon, is unsatisfactory.
  I should be out of order in reading out a long list of Measures which I hope would receive Government help, but if this one is to be so favoured, why not that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) dealing with areas of special scientific interest? Why not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to say that he would be out of order in reading out or referring to these other Measures.
  Mr. Cooke: Even fortified by that assurance that it would not be out of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not do so, because I have a list of about a hundred, and do not want to weary the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member misheard me. I said that he was quite right in saying that he would be out of order in referring to these other Bills.
  Mr. Cooke: I will only add, then, that there is a Bill of mine to which I hope that the Government will give as much help as they have given to this one.
  I hope that we will have this system of certificated Bills, which has been done unofficially before. On one occasion, I drew sixteenth place in the list and some of my legal friends assured me that if I took up something to do with fatal accidents—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is still out of order.
  Mr. Cooke: So even a retrospective reference is out of order.
  The whole matter of Private Members' Bills is a bit of a sham and it would help if the Government came clean and

  1539
  said whether this will be a Government Bill or not, because we should like to know.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Maxwell: I know nothing of certificated Bills and this Measure was not suggested to me by the Patronage Secretary or anyone else in the Government. I represent a constituency with considerable air pollution problems. Buckingham and North Bucks is the centre for fletton bricks and there is a major works in my constituency. There is the prospect of the new city of Milton Keys and the problems of water pollution and housing provision for London, all of which are causing considerable deterioration in my constituents' quality of life. This is why I chose this subject for a Bill.
  I am extremely sorry that the Opposition have, for weeks, been blocking this Measure by procedural means, having regard to the fact that the Clean Air Act, 1956, for which London is extremely grateful because it brought all the smogs and fogs to an end, was an all-party Measure. So is this Bill, yet, for some inexplicable reason, week after week, although Her Majesty's Official Opposition assured me that they had no objection to the Bill, they have nevertheless put up stooges like the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) to come and shout "Object".
  These are deplorable tactics, and then to come here, like a little quisling, and read the lessons to the Patronage Secretary is unbelievable—
  Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: On a point of order. Is it in order to call an hon. Member a quisling?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The word "quisling" is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.
  Mr. Maxwell: I withdraw it unreservedly.
  Mr. Robert Cooke rose—
  Mr. Maxwell: I will give way when I am ready. In any event, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman deserves my giving way to him.
  I do not consider it necessary for me to speak at great length in support of the Motion. I merely wish to point out
  1540
  the various excellent reasons why it would be appropriate for the Bill to be removed from Standing Committee and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Clean air—and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bristol, West at least agrees with me about this—is a matter that commands the general good will and support of almost everybody. It is not—or it certainly should not be—a matter of party politics. It is 12 years since the Clean Air Act, 1956, came into force. One of the more memorable events which led up to that Act was the great London smog of 1952. More than any other single factor, it was that which perhaps united public opinion in a determination that something effective had to be done to ensure cleaner air in our great cities.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot go into the merits of the Bill. He can only consider the desirability of removing it from Standing Committee and committing it to a Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. Maxwell: I am just coming to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  As is well known, excellent progress has been made throughout the country, but London in particular is out ahead in the matter of smoke control and clean air. The Clean Air Act laid the basis of the progress that has been achieved in the past 12 years. It was not a harassing Measure. I merely gave effect to what everybody wanted—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member could have understood my Ruling. I said that it was not in order to discuss the merits of the Measure. He can discuss only the desirability of removing the Bill from Standing Committee and committing it to a Committee of the whole House.
  Mr. Maxwell: The 1956 Act had all-party support and, as a matter of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to omit those passages from his notes which refer to the merits of the Measure and to address himself to the limited Question before the House.
  Mr. Maxwell: I will do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  1541
  As a matter of practical Parliamentary business, it is extremely important that the Bill should not be left in Standing Committee. It so happens that the Divorce Reform Bill falls to be taken before it in Standing Committee C, and this is likely to take a long time to be considered. There is, therefore, a real risk that the Clean Air Bill might not be reached in Standing Committee. This would be a great pity and also a nuisance, since the Bill would have to be reintroduced—and, from a purely procedural viewpoint, much valuable work already done by Ministers, hon. Members and officials would either have to be done twice or at least would have to go into cold storage until we could get things going again.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I intervene merely to make it perfectly clear that, as I said, I am not against the Bill. I am against the idea of it receiving special favourable treatment. If the Patronage Secretary will say that other Bills similarly placed will get equally favourable treatment and will be smiled upon by the Government, my hon. Friends and I will feel happier about the Motion. We are, therefore, not against the Bill but the way in which it is being handled.
  Mr. Maxwell: On the other hand, the Bill is eminently suitable for consideration in Committee of the whole House. Its provisions are few, clear and straightforward and it commands the widest support. It would do something that needs doing. We all agreed that when we gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading on 16th February. If we did that, why should we now run the risk of it not being reached in Standing Committee? That would indeed be an illogical fate for a short, much-needed, popular, sensible, uncomplicated Measure against which no hon. Member had a word to say less than eight weeks ago.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: As the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) said, all hon. Members are in favour of clean air. A great deal of work has been done in Parliament in the few years during which I have been an hon. Member to ensure the cleanliness of the air. However, in view of the befouling of the air in the Chamber, brought in by the hon. Member for Buck
  1542
  Ingham, I urge that his Bill remain in Standing Committee.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): During the past few years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have from time to time been fortunate enough to catch your eye. My speeches on those occasions have not always earned universal approbation, but at least they were brief. In my new capacity the least I can do is to endeavour to ensure that that good rule is maintained.
  I think it might be helpful to remind the House of the arrangements that were made experimentally for Private Members' Bills this Session. In the past it was usual to allow 10 Private Members' Bill Fridays, six for Second Readings and four for Bills which had made greater progress. This Session the House agreed to add six further days for Private Members' Bills. This made 16 Private Members' Bill days. The House also agreed that these 16 Fridays should be divided into eight days when Second Readings have precedence and eight days when Bills which have made greater progress have precedence. A certain amount of congestion in the one Standing Committee, Committee C, where private Members' business has precedence, has resulted from this decision. This congestion has become worse congested because of the number of Bills which, against the normal run, require, or are likely to require, more than one sitting. As a result, some of the eight Fridays which should have been devoted to Bills which have made greater progress have not received the expected flow of Bills awaiting their later stages, while at the same time there is a growing queue of Bills in Committee C.
  In order to help to ease this congestion, we could hardly resist the one solution which would deal with both of these problems at the same time, namely that Bills in Standing Committee C should be recommitted to Private Members' Bill Fridays. Of course, this is a matter entirely for the House. When I said that the Government look warmly upon it, I meant that they look warmly upon a Motion designed to reduce congestion among Private Members' Bills. The alternative, if the House decided otherwise, whereby even more Bills obtained

  1543
  Second Reading and had no chance whatever of reaching their later stages because they would be committed to an already congested Standing Committee, seemed to us not to bear very much sense.
  The experience of this Session, and it has been an experiment we have undertaken, will clearly require us to consider in respect of 1968–69 whether we should revert to the previous decision of 10 Bill Fridays and 10 Motion Fridays, or some other possible division, or whether to continue the experiment in the hope that perhaps more than one Standing Committee may be set up in which Private Members' business has precedence.
  Committee upon Friday, 3rd May.

  A38 ROAD (BRISTOL GLOUCESTER SECTION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  10.58 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I wish to raise a local problem which is of importance to my constituency. Before doing that, however, may I welcome the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) to what I believe is his first appearance on the Government Front Bench, and congratulate him on his appointment? I hope that he has an extremely successful, though not necessarily a particularly long period in office. I am sure that he will do very well.
  1544
  I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) will now appreciate that it is not out of a desire to prefer my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) against other hon. Members that the Government have supported this Motion. Indeed, in recommending my hon. Friend's proposal, I offer the hon. Member for Bristol, West and any of his hon. Friends and any of my hon. Friends the reminder that the same procedure is available to all other hon. Members.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 0.

  Division No. 120.]

  AYES

  [10.50 p.m.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gourlay, Harry

  O'Malley, Brian

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harper, Joseph

  Reynolds, C. W.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Body, Richard

  Hattersley, Roy

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Booth, Albert

  Howie, W.

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

  Skeffington, Arthur

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Brown, R. W. (Shorcditch & F'bury)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Buchan, Norman

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Varley, Eric C.

  Carmichael, Neil

  MacColl, James

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Macdonald, A, H.

  Whitaker, Ben

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Maddan, Martin

  Whitlock, William

  Dunn, James A.

  Marquand, David

  Winstantey, Dr. M. P.

  Ellis, John

  Maxwell, Robert

  Faulds, Andrew

  Millan, Bruce

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  NOES

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES: Mr. Robert Cooke and Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker.

  I want to raise with him a difficult matter to which no one has provided a satisfactory answer. I dare say that it is not within the capacity of any Ministry to do so. It concerns the dangers of the A38 road between Bristol and Gloucester.
  It is a road which is well known to very many people. A large number of those who live in the Midlands use it when travelling to the West Country for their summer holidays. It is also a trade route of considerable importance, and has been for a very long time. At all times of the year, it is one of the most heavily used roads in the country.
  The section passing through my constituency concerns particularly the stretch from Gloucester to Berkeley Road, and on it there are two distinct forms of danger. The first is one to motor traffic as a whole. The gradients of the country over which the road passes and the turns the road takes are particular and peculiar.

  1545
  It is an old carriageway of historic importance and of almost immemorial age. It is difficult to see why the twists and turns have been put there, except it be for historic reasons. However that may be, this is a three-lane carriageway today and in this modern age three-lane carriageways are regarded with special anxiety. A great deal of work has been done on this road and I congratulate the Ministry, under this and previous Governments on what it has tried to do.
  The local residents and I believe that a number of minor things should be done and I cannot understand why the Government do not press on with them. One thing I have been urging is that there should be passing lines over this stretch of the road indicating which line of traffic is entitled to overtake. These lines are well known on the Great North Road and other roads, being painted on the road for three-quarters of a mile. For some unexplained reason it has not been Ministry policy that these lines should be used on this section of the A38. I have seen with horror some of the most spectacular accidents on this road, caused by a vehicle impatiently moving out after following a lorry for a long time and meeting another vehicle head-on in the middle of the road. I cannot understand why these passing lines should not be as successful here, whatever the turns and gradients, as elsewhere. It was argued in a letter from the Ministry that the expense of painting white lines would be great. I was astonished by the figures given but I cannot believe, even if they are correct, that the lines would not be worth while.
  The second reply, when one puts forward suggestions like this, is that very soon our troubles will be ended with the M5 and that traffic will sweep down that and we shall be left with the A.38 as a little motor road as it was in the 1900s. I do not believe this is so. Experience in other cases shows that a sort of Parkinson's Law operates and that traffic increases to fill the roads available. I believe that the M5, the arrival of which we shall welcome, but the date of which we somewhat doubt, will not substantially relieve traffic on the A38 in the long term. Traffic on the A5 is not much less now than it was before the M1 opened. This will happen again. It is a standing challenge to the archi
  1546
  tects of the Ministry to see what they can do to make this road safer now and in the future.
  The second danger on the road at the moment is to pedestrians, who concern me as a local representative because they are residents, and motorists may not be. We have been horrified recently by some of the tragedies on this road. In the last month there have been a number of deaths, particularly of older people. This is significant because the road is wide, the traffic fast, the lighting either nonexistent or not good. Those are the people who have not been able to cross that road in safety. Therefore, we regard the matter with particular anxiety, which I know that the Minister will share.
  I now turn to local conditions on this stretch of road, and the area of Quedgeley. I understand that it is now proposed to have a dual-carriageway on this part of the road leading south out of Gloucester, and to some extent that is welcome. A dual-carriageway is necessarily agreeable to the motorist. The faster traffic can overtake the trucks, but it means that traffic goes faster. I believe that the carriageway at Quedgeley is about 33 ft. wide at present, and that in the dual-carriageway each carriageway will be 24 ft. wide. The difference is not very great. The residents will lose part of their gardens, but I am sure that they will not begrudge them for this purpose if they are contributing to real safety. But the carriageway as a whole will be substantially wider. The traffic will be faster, and I do not believe that from the pedestrian's point of view the position will be very much better than it is now. With the dual carriageway continuously carried on there will be certain local inconvenience. There will be no right turn for at least two miles through the village and environs of Quedgeley, and at the end of that distance motorists will have to turn back towards Gloucester to make a right turn.
  At present there is a particular difficulty at Castle Lane, a turning towards Epney. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this point in detail, because it is a very local matter. It is possible to turn right at Castle Lane, but it is a dangerous manoeuvre. It is a dangerous manoeuvre to do anything on the A38, but still more to turn right

  1547
  At present there are no signs there. The county council says that it is safer not to put up signs showing that there is a right turn, because if it does not do so very few people will turn right. That argument cannot stand up. The only people who want to go to a rather remote village like that are those who already know that it is there—the local residents. They are the people who will turn right; no one else will do so. They are the people who are not protected by any signs showing that there is a right turn, and the other motorists will be taken by surprise. Strangers will miss it or will not wish to use it. Only the "locals" know of it and, therefore, only they run the dangers of the right turn on this fast and dangerous road. This is not a sensible policy, and I ask the Minister to look at it.
  I turn to the question of Naas Lane, which is a small road leading from the R.A.F. Maintenance Unit—No. 7 M.U., as it is called. A large number of people work there. In the evening, when they come out, they wish to go on this road and turn left or right to go home. It has been the practice up to fairly recently to have a policeman on duty in the road, but after a number of near misses the police decided that it was too dangerous, and, rightly, they withdrew their man from trying to direct traffic in the middle of the road.
  There are four possible courses of action. One is to do nothing, which would be the worst course. The next is to provide very good lighting at the place for the winter months. No doubt that would help. The next possibility is to provide traffic lights. I know, and I am sure that it is known to the Minister, that those in authority have suggested that traffic lights at the Naas Lane crossing would be helpful. But objection has been taken to them on the ground that the central reservation necessary to install traffic lights would take up so much space that it would constitute a new danger. I wonder whether this is sound.
  On the Continent it is the case almost exclusively that traffic lights are suspended over that road without a central reservation. They are easy to see. They are rather higher than some of ours. As far as I know, there is no technical objection to this being done here. I
  1548
  should like the Minister to consider having such lights at this corner, since they would be helpful.
  The third proposal—and I understand that it will be proceeded with in due course—is for a roundabout, but that is very expensive and takes a long time to build. I should like to know which of these three courses of action—better lighting, traffic lights of a certain kind and a roundabout—will be adopted and when.
  I understand that it has been suggested by an authority that there was, after all, an alternative route for workers coming from No. 7 M.U. in that they do not have to come out on the A38 but through Naas Lane railway crossing and out through Brookthorpe. Perhaps this has been said in jest, for it is really a bicycle track and it is surely not possible to have so many people using such a narrow lane.
  I pass now to the most dangerous point in the road at present. This is the Cambridge road junction. It is further south than the other points I have mentioned and it comes after a long straight stretch of road, which is slightly downhill with a slight bend to the right and with buildings on both sides. It is not restricted and cars reach very high speeds. Motorists are tempted thereabouts to go at high speed because there is nothing to restrict them as far as they can see.
  The people particularly at risk here are not motorists. If they wish to turn at this crossing, they pull off to the left, which is not in itself a dangerous manoeuvre, and others coming in over Dursley junction can see well to the right because the road bends slightly to the left and to the right. I am aware of no particular danger which could arise there for them.
  The people who are at danger in this place are the pedestrians. This is a centre of a small village and they have to cross according to their normal avocations. They cannot see, in crossing from west to east to their left, traffic coming fast from the north. There are also special temptations to cross. There are two bus stops opposite each other.
  Owing to the arrangements of the bus company, quite properly, the buses from Bristol and Gloucester and going on to Dursley arrive within two minutes of each other and the people coming from

  1549
  Bristol have to hop across the road. Sometimes their bus is waiting for them and they must catch it. They cannot wait five minutes to cross the road. There is only a two-minute interval in the timetabling and if they miss the bus they have to wait an hour or walk. So they have to hop across sharply although they cannot see very well. It is in this wide road with fast traffic that recently two very respected friends of ours in my constituency have been cut down and killed, and this is by no means the first case.
  Suggestions have been made for improvements at Cambridge. I suggested in a Question to the Minister that there should be a footbridge but this is probably not the best solution. A better suggestion would be to have an island in the middle of the road so that at least pedestrians could take it in two hops. Another suggestion is that the bus stop should be slightly altered, so that pedestrians do not have to cross the road directly at this potentially dangerous point, and that the bus timetables should be altered so that there is not an incentive to race across to catch a bus waiting on the other side of the road.
  The real anxiety about this can be illustrated by the fact that the residents of Cambridge have got up a petition. The village of Slimbridge, which is next to Cambridge, is included in the parish. Ninety per cent. of the residents of the parish have signed the petition and sent it to me, and I will have the honour to give it to the Minister. It is not suitable for presentation to the House, because it is not in the prescribed form, but it will illustrate the deep anxiety felt by the people who are in danger.
  It is especially the older people, who suffer because they are not spry enough to get across the road in time. I have conducted a bit of a campaign about the A38. This is not out of any desire to be awkward to the Minister—I have done it under different Governments. In the Stroud and Dursley area the A38 is regarded with dread and anxiety. It is a common question to ask people on which side of the A38 they live, the implication being that if one is on one side one had better jolly well stay there or it will be the worse for one.
  This cutting of the community into two is not good. It cannot be maintained.
  1550
  A great number of schoolchildren on the Slimbridge, or west side, of the A38 have to go to school in Dursley, and they cross the road for transport. We have to cross the road, we cannot resign ourselves to being cut off, one side from another. We await the arrival of the M5. I do not know when it will come, but I doubt whether it will alter the position.
  In spite of what has been done by the Ministry there is much that could be done. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider the various proposals that I have made, and ask him to appreciate that the anxiety of local residents does not arise from a desire to chivvy or chide or be critical, but is a real anxiety for the life and limb of those who live in the area. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter most seriously.
  11.17 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I want to thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) for his kind expressions, and for the generous way in which he has welcomed me on the occasion of my maiden speech from the Despatch Box. I want to pay a personal tribute to him for the great constituency interest that he has shown. This is evidenced by the number of Questions that he has asked on the subject and by the fact that he has initiated this debate.
  In case I am accused of transforming the House into a mutual admiration society, may I express the hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel as generously towards me when I have finished my reply as he did at the beginning of his speech.
  He has referred to the question of "passing lines". I can only assume that he means the double offset lines that have been tried throughout the country on something like 28 miles of three-lane highways. The Ministry has regretfully had to admit that the experiment has been a failure and has not made for safety, as was hoped. I could not promise the hon. Member to introduce any such lines.
  When consideration was first given to the problem of how to deal with traffic between Gloucester and Bristol it was decided that the provision of a new dual

  1551
  carriageway was preferable to the dual-ling of the A38. This will materialise in a few years, in the shape of the M5.
  In spite of the doubts which the hon. Gentleman has expressed, I am certain that the completion of the M5 will considerably reduce the weight of traffic on the A38. Relief to the A38 will begin to be noticeable when the M5 is opened to traffic between Strensham and Eastington at the end of 1970. Our target for completing the length between Eastington and the Almondsbury interchange with the M4 motorway is the early summer of 1971. When this connection has been made we expect about half the traffic now using the A38 between Bristol and Gloucester to transfer to the motorway. This should result in an immediate fall in the number of accidents on the A38.
  To make the road safer in the meantime, and for the benefit of residual traffic after the opening of the M5, improvements have been carried out over the years where they are most necessary and, within the economic limits set by the advent of the M5, we are continuing to make such improvements. Recently the construction of dual carriageways between Gables Farm and Whitminster and a widening scheme from Claypits to Fromebridge have been completed. At Stone the visibility has been improved.
  In January work started on the construction of a new roundabout near the junction with Cole Avenue with a short length of new dual carriageway to Sims Lane, and later this year the A38 between Sims Lane and Naas Lane, Quedgeley, will be improved. Towards the Bristol end of the road, in about two years time we intend to dual the length between Almonds-bury and Southmead Road, Filton.
  It is clear that the measures taken on the A38 have resulted in a significant fall in the number of accidents occurring between Bristol and Gloucester. Ten years ago, in 1958, there were 263 accidents on this length. Last year, 1967, there were 169, which shows a considerable reduction. We claim that this has been due to the improvements which have been carried out. This is despite the tremendous increase in traffic volumes during those past ten years. Naturally
  1552
  we hope that accidents will continue to decrease further. Although we do not anticipate the need for further substantial improvement schemes, other than those I have already mentioned, in view of the relief that the M5 motorway will provide, nevertheless we will continue to take whatever measures we consider practicable to improve safety.
  The improvement of the A38 from the new roundabout scheme now under construction at the junction with Cole Avenue southwards to Naas Lane, Quedgeley, is expected to be started in September, and this will take two years to complete. We have also been able to include an improved lighting system for Quedgeley in the programme for the current financial year. Preparation of the detailed scheme will now be put in hand and every effort will be made—I stress this—to get the lighting installed, if possible, by next winter in order to ease the difficulties at the Naas Lane junction when workers from the Royal Air Force Maintenance Unit are leaving the depot. Meanwhile, with longer hours of daylight, the police traffic control at the junction has been resumed at peak hours. Eventually we hope to construct a roundabout here and investigations into a possible scheme are continuing.
  Concerning the village of Cambridge, I, too, deeply regret the deaths, on Sunday, 25th February, of those two elderly people who had lived all their lives in this village. However, we have gone into great detail to see what, if anything, can be done to help pedestrians to cross the road in safety. Last week the Divisional Road Engineer met the Deputy County Surveyor, the Chairman of the County Road Safety Committee and the Chairman's Deputy for the Cambridge area on the site and a number of suggestions were discussed.
  It has to be remembered that the number of pedestrians crossing the road through the village is small. During a count taken on 1st March for the 11 hours from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m., the total was 211, or 19 per hour. During a 12-hour count in June, 1965, the total was 251, or 20 per hour. If these numbers were concentrated at one point, it would be easy to deal with them, but the surveys show that this small number of people who cross the road do so over a 500-yard stretch, so that it is not an easy matter

  1553
  to deal with. The numbers are well below the criteria for the provision of pedestrian crossings, or for footbridges or underpasses. If the people could all be channelled to one point, it would be easy to make provision. With these small numbers, a pedestrian crossing is not a practical proposition.
  There is, of course, the question of a central refuge. Again, within the present three-lane carriageway, an isolated refuge would be completely unacceptable because, if anything, this would constitute a vehicle hazard and a further hazard to the unfortunate pedestrians on the central refuge. A point might well be made for widening the bend on the road in the village to put in a short central refuge, to give people the chance to get across the road.
  There are many points that I should like to have made, but time does not permit. I assure the hon. Member, however, that we are in no way complacent about accidents, wherever they occur. The difficulty in Cambridge is to determine exactly what measures could, in practice, be effective in making it safer for pedestrians to cross the road. A dual
  1554
  carriageway through the village would achieve this, but the fact must be faced that if we were contemplating a dual carriage, we should have to demolish a large part of the property in the village. I do not think that this would be acceptable to the constituents of the hon. Member.
  We are well aware of the bus position, which the hon. Member has mentioned, and we are in consultation with the bus undertaking with a view to rerouting the service so that we can re-site the bus bays rather than have the dangerous situation that the stops are more or less directly opposite one another. I assure the hon. Member that all the points which he has raised are under active consideration, and we will consider any further point which he may care to put to us.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Commonwealth Games (Accommodation)
  Commonwealth Games (Accommodation)
  School Building
  School Building
  Migration Movements (Scottish Economic Planning Board Study)
  Migration Movements (Scottish Economic Planning Board Study)
  Murders and Crimes of Violence
  Murders and Crimes of Violence
  Part-time Education
  Part-time Education
  University, North of Scotland
  University, North of Scotland
  Agriculture and Forestry (Land Acquisitions)
  Agriculture and Forestry (Land Acquisitions)
  Shipbuilding, Ship Repairing and Mining (Employment Prospects)
  Shipbuilding, Ship Repairing and Mining (Employment Prospects)
  Forth Road Bridge (Toll Revenue)
  Forth Road Bridge (Toll Revenue)
  Tractors and Agricultural Machines (Excise Duty)
  Tractors and Agricultural Machines (Excise Duty)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation Schemes)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation Schemes)
  Houses (Surveys)
  Houses (Surveys)
  North Road to Bellshill (Speed Limit Application)
  North Road to Bellshill (Speed Limit Application)
  Shelters, Glasgow (Demolition)
  Shelters, Glasgow (Demolition)
  Police Force, Glasgow
  Police Force, Glasgow
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Vehicle Noise Regulations
  Vehicle Noise Regulations
  Service Industries
  Service Industries
  Street Lighting (Expenditure)
  Street Lighting (Expenditure)
  Milk
  Milk
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Commercial Property (Local Authority Rates)
  Commercial Property (Local Authority Rates)
  Teachers (Registration)
  Teachers (Registration)
  Farm Price Guarantees, Deficiency and Subsidy Payments
  Farm Price Guarantees, Deficiency and Subsidy Payments
  Timber-Frame Houses
  Timber-Frame Houses
  Hunt Committee (C.B.I. Report on Regional Development)
  Hunt Committee (C.B.I. Report on Regional Development)
  Departmental Staff (Honours Degrees)
  Departmental Staff (Honours Degrees)
  Schooling (Cost)
  Schooling (Cost)
AVIATION
  United Arab Airlines (Fares)
  United Arab Airlines (Fares)
  Concorde (Engine Modification)
  Concorde (Engine Modification)
  Leconfield Airport (Autair International Airways)
  Leconfield Airport (Autair International Airways)
  Bournemouth (Hum) Airport
  Bournemouth (Hum) Airport
BOARD OF TRADE
  Entertainment Industry (Monopolies Commission)
  Entertainment Industry (Monopolies Commission)
  Ciné Films (Import Duty)
  Ciné Films (Import Duty)
  Investment Grants, Scotland
  Investment Grants, Scotland
  Industrial Development Certificates (Atherstone, Tamworth and Nuneaton)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Atherstone, Tamworth and Nuneaton)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rutherglen and Cambuslang)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Rutherglen and Cambuslang)
ROADS
  Congestion (Bank Holiday Weekends)
  Congestion (Bank Holiday Weekends)
  Cornwall (A30 and A38 Road Traffic)
  Cornwall (A30 and A38 Road Traffic)
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway (Deanhead Dam, Scammonden)
  Lancashire-Yorkshire Motorway (Deanhead Dam, Scammonden)
  Road Building and Maintenance, Brighton (Grant)
  Road Building and Maintenance, Brighton (Grant)
TRANSPORT
  British and Foreign Road Haulage Services
  British and Foreign Road Haulage Services
  Convoy Driving
  Convoy Driving
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Price Increases (Complaints)
  Price Increases (Complaints)
  French Wheat Imports
  French Wheat Imports
  Brambell Committee Report
  Brambell Committee Report
  Forestry Co-operatives
  Forestry Co-operatives
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Milk (Price)
  Milk (Price)
  Agricultural Supplies, Norfolk (Distribution)
  Agricultural Supplies, Norfolk (Distribution)
  Investment Grant (Plant and Equipment)
  Investment Grant (Plant and Equipment)
  Forestry Commission Plantations (Ordnance Survey)
  Forestry Commission Plantations (Ordnance Survey)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Scottish Industry (Budget Increases)
  Scottish Industry (Budget Increases)
  Kuwait (Sterling Balances)
  Kuwait (Sterling Balances)
  Government Departments (Newspaper Advertising)
  Government Departments (Newspaper Advertising)
  Civil Service Posts (Executive Class)
  Civil Service Posts (Executive Class)
  Scottish Transport (Budget Increases)
  Scottish Transport (Budget Increases)
  Civil Service (Productivity Agreements)
  Civil Service (Productivity Agreements)
  Civil Service (Scotland)
  Civil Service (Scotland)
  Civil Servants (Departmental Head Offices)
  Civil Servants (Departmental Head Offices)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Mr. S. Roberts, Plumstead (Personal Case)
  Mr. S. Roberts, Plumstead (Personal Case)
  Benefit Payments (Time Limit)
  Benefit Payments (Time Limit)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Arts Council Bursaries
  Arts Council Bursaries
  Proposed Comprehensive School, Bloxham
  Proposed Comprehensive School, Bloxham
  18-year-old Students (University Entrants)
  18-year-old Students (University Entrants)
  Further Education Establishments (List of Courses)
  Further Education Establishments (List of Courses)
  Surrey County Education Authority (Allocations)
  Surrey County Education Authority (Allocations)
  New School Buildings (Expenditure)
  New School Buildings (Expenditure)
  British Museum (Improvements)
  British Museum (Improvements)
  Teachers (Quota)
  Teachers (Quota)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Servicemen (Housing)
  Servicemen (Housing)
  Military Medal
  Military Medal
  Hillsea Married Quarters Estate, Portsmouth (Proposed Furniture Store)
  Hillsea Married Quarters Estate, Portsmouth (Proposed Furniture Store)
  CYPRUS (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)
  CYPRUS (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Patents Act, 1949
  Patents Act, 1949
  Methylated Spirits Drinkers
  Methylated Spirits Drinkers
  Dental Estimates Board (Staff)
  Dental Estimates Board (Staff)
  Deaths from Poisoning
  Deaths from Poisoning
  1971 Census
  1971 Census
HOSPITALS
  Waiting Lists, Gateshead
  Waiting Lists, Gateshead
  Domestic Staff, Portsmouth (Pay and Productivity)
  Domestic Staff, Portsmouth (Pay and Productivity)
  Shelton Hospital Fire (Inquiry)
  Shelton Hospital Fire (Inquiry)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Approved Schools (Abscondings and Bound-breakings)
  Approved Schools (Abscondings and Bound-breakings)
  Royal Observer Corps Posts (Closure)
  Royal Observer Corps Posts (Closure)
  Regional Seats of Government
  Regional Seats of Government
  Racialist Slogans
  Racialist Slogans
  Derelict Cars (Removal)
  Derelict Cars (Removal)
  Visitors (Refusal of Entry)
  Visitors (Refusal of Entry)
  Immigrants and Emigrants
  Immigrants and Emigrants
HOUSING
  Council House Rents, Thorne
  Council House Rents, Thorne
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Sierra Leone (Development Aid)
  Sierra Leone (Development Aid)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Manchester—Stoke-on-Trent (Delays)
  Manchester—Stoke-on-Trent (Delays)
POST OFFICE
  Lykiardopulo and Co. (Theft)
  Lykiardopulo and Co. (Theft)
GAS
  North Sea Gas (Conversion)
  North Sea Gas (Conversion)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  New Houses and Flats, Scotland (Cost)
  New Houses and Flats, Scotland (Cost)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Purchases)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Purchases)
  Appointments
  Appointments
WALES
  Land (Local Authority Ownership)
  Land (Local Authority Ownership)
  Reservoir Water Supplies
  Reservoir Water Supplies
  Forestry Commission Land, Montgomeryshire
  Forestry Commission Land, Montgomeryshire

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.
The Marquess of Winchester—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Education Act,

Consular Relations Act,

Brighton Marina Act,

Epping Forest (Waterworks Corner) Act.

KOREAN ARMISTICE VIOLATIONS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the United Nations Security Council that a commission be appointed to investigate the charges made by the Governments of both North and South Korea that the terms of the Armistice Agreement of July, 1953, are being violated.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, in the Armistice Agreement of 1953, two bodies were set up for investigating alleged breaches of that Armistice. These were the Military Armistice Commission and the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission. Neither has been able to fulfil its role effectively because
324
North Korea has consistently refused to allow United Nations inspection of its territory. If North Korea were willing to allow complaints from both sides to be investigated, the existing bodies, specifically established for that purpose, would be fully adequate. In the circumstances, I see no purpose in Her Majesty's Government proposing the establishment of any new body.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while recognising what my noble friend has said, is it not the case that South Korea has submitted to the Security Council over one hundred instances of infiltration and that North Korea—and this is significant—has also submitted to the Security Council, through the Soviet Government, even more cases of infiltration? Does this not indicate that there would be some willingness on both sides for there to be an investigation of infiltration? And in view of the fact and the great danger that both Governments predict war by 1970—another Vietnam—is it not now urgent that some special steps should be taken by the United Nations to prevent this disaster?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think my noble friend will agree that his question was rather a long one, and I hope he will forgive me if I answer it shortly. The fact is that allegations and counter-allegations of this kind have been made but we see no sign so far of any change in the attitude of North Korea in denying the competence of the United Nations in any matter relating to North Korea. There are these two bodies and they would work together if the North Koreans would work with them. I see no purpose in setting up yet another body.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the figures given by my noble friend Lord Brockway as to the situation on the border could very well be greatly improved if the Government of North Korea would agree to the deployment of United Nations Observers along the border?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course; but I am sure my noble friend will know that the Military Armistice Commission, to which I referred, in fact consists of officers from the United Nations command.

325
They are mainly Americans and South Koreans, but there are other nationalities as well. And the simple fact is that the United Nations people are there but the North Koreans will allow no inspection of their territories.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not one of the difficulties the fact that North Korea has not been made a member of the United Nations and that the activity in South Korea was United Nations activity? Further, would Her Majesty's Government seek to find some solution to this problem through the Soviet Union, who acted as the means of communication with the Security Council?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government will seek every way they can to help in this matter, but I ask my noble friend to believe that, whatever may be the motives of the North Korean Government in this particular case, they do deny the competence of the United Nations.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in view of the last question by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may I ask: is it not a fact that the recent United Nations presence in Korea is due to the quite unjustified attack by North Korea on South Korea in 1950?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said, but I think it would be unprofitable for me to comment on it at the moment.

I.M.F. CONFERENCE AND SPECIAL DRAWING RIGHTS
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the results of the International Monetary Conference held at Stockholm on the 29th and 30th March, indicating the total amount of Special Drawing Rights which could be made available to all the countries which have agreed to operate the plan; and whether the
326
plan now agreed on differs in any way from that agreed on at Rio in September.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the Group of Ten, with one country abstaining, reached agreement at Stockholm on the amendments to the Articles of the International Monetary Fund needed to establish a scheme for Special Drawing Rights. The proposed scheme is closely based on the outline plan adopted at the annual meeting of the Fund in Rio de Janeiro last September. I might add that I in end to go into this subject in rather more detail in the debate which is to follow.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am sorry that I cannot be here this evening to listen to the noble Lord's speech, but may I ask him whether there has been any final agreement on what majority of voting power in the I.M.F. will be needed to activate the Special Drawing Rights, and whether these Rights could be activated before the next annual meeting of the in September?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, agreement on the amendments will require three-fifths majority of the members with four-fifths of the voting power. The scheme of the Drawing Rights should be activated by about the middle of 1969 but, of course, the final details are still to be settled.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, having regard to the relatively narrow margin whereby the free gold price varies from the official price, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is not a case for a really open-minded reconsideration of the advantages of a free gold price, which would seem to many to be a better way of curing the world's financial troubles than trying to rely on paper money?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think there has been a very open-minded consideration of this problem, but as I shall try to show later on. I think the decision leads away from the conclusion which the noble Lord draws.

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR TECHNOLOGY
2.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in discussions regarding the formation of the proposed European Centre for Technology.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology has had informal discussions with other European Governments. In addition, the Confederation of British Industry, with which we are in close touch, has consulted corresponding institutions in Europe, where it has found interest in the idea of such a centre.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that encouraging reply, which I think goes further than the Government have so far gone on this matter, may I ask him whether it is intended that this new body should be rather more industrial in character than governmental, that its members will be provided by the C.B.I. and possibly other industrial federations in other countries? And am I right in thinking it will be in line with the Benelux proposals earlier this year, and could include other European countries —the members of EFTA or others—and might perhaps leave out any country that was not anxious to co-operate?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, so far as the first part of the question is concerned, I think this is a case where there must clearly be participation both by Governments and by industry. In the initial stages the C.B.I. are conducting soundings. It is clear to me and to Her Majesty's Government that when this centre is set up it will have to be a matter for governmental action as well as industrial action. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the noble Earl is right in supposing that we hope to continue this investigation in the framework of the Benelux proposals which, as he will know, place technology very high on their list of priorities. So
328
far as participation is concerned, certainly the Benelux proposals envisage a wider area of consultation than simply between the Common Market and candidate countries, and I can assure the noble Earl that if there are some countries who do not wish to take part in this consultation it does not necessarily follow that we shall discontinue the idea or be discouraged from bringing it to fruition.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, are not the trade unions also concerned; and will they not be invited to become members of this conference?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course the trade unions are much concerned with this proposal. They have been consulted, and their views have been sought. We are not talking about a conference, but rather about the establishment of a permanent centre. It is difficult to say at this stage who will be members and how it will be constructed, but I can assure the noble Lord that the trade unions and the T.U.C. will be taken fully into consultation.
LORD MITCHISON: As fully, both as regards consultation and membership, as the C.B.I.?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, of course. The C.B.I. are conducting the soundings at the moment, but we have kept the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. informed equally throughout the investigation so far.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask also something about the objects of this centre? Am I right in thinking one of the objects will be to encourage mergers between firms in different countries in Europe, and also that it might assist in rationalising tax and patent laws? It would be very interesting to know more about the objects of the organisation.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it might be unwise for me at the moment to go too deeply into the exact nature of this centre, because we are awaiting the reactions of our partners on the Continent. As the noble Earl will know, the Six are now engaged in considering the Benelux proposals, the Italian Memorandum and the Franco-German Declaration, all of which include proposals for technological co-operation. Therefore, I think it would be unwise for me to go

329
too specifically into the exact nature of the centre. But I think I can say that one of its aims would be to undertake reviews of the whole scope of European industry and make forecasts about its development and the way in which its structure will emerge, and certainly I imagine that it would take into account the kind of mergers to which the noble Earl refers.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that such a project is likely to be very wasteful of scarce human resources and material resources unless its objectives and purposes are very specifically and clearly defined, and that it will not really provide a substitute for direct contacts between laboratories and industries in the countries concerned?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course I take the noble Lord's point. Nothing can really take the place of this kind of direct co-operation, but I do believe that this centre will have an important role to play, and certainly our partners on the Continent seem to be persuaded of this. I agree with the noble Lord that it will not be fully effective unless its aims and objectives are clearly defined and set out; and that we shall aim to do before going any further in setting it up.

CERVICAL CANCER TESTS
2.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: 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 what progress has been made in research in the use of lasers for the diagnosis of cervical cancer, and whether the N.R.D.C. are to make available the necessary funds to compare optical with laser methods.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, early trials of the technique gave disappointing results. Further work has been carried out since then, the results of which are under consideration. It is possible that a fresh series of trials to compare the technique
330
with accepted procedures will be it initiated. The Ministry of Health is in touch with the N.R.D.C. on this matter and the latter will consider whether any financial support is justified.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, which is certainly more encouraging than the one he gave to my supplementary question last November, may I ask him if he can say whether the International Cancer Research Establishment at Lyons is now working on similar lines?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry I have not that information at the moment, but if the noble Earl agrees I will send it to him shortly.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Royal Victoria Infirmary, in conjunction with a firm in Newcastle, have examined 319 cases by using the Laser techniques, and cases he not think that the results of the correlation between the Laser technique method and the cytological examination under microscope promises well? Further, does not the noble Lord agree that further work should be done in this field?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as I said, I am aware of those facts. We are comparing here an established technique with a new technique. The first run of tests to compare the two techniques suggested that the new technique had no advantage over the established technique. Another run of tests h is now been carried out elsewhere which suggests that it does. In order to resolve the apparent contradiction between the first two runs, the comparison test is being considered by the Ministry of Heath and the N.R.D.C.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when the result of this test will be known?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is not known when this test will be completed.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask his right hone arable friend the Minister of Health whether he will enter into discussion with the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle at an early date, to see how the programme of correlation between existing techniques and the new Laser techniques can

331
be worked out, bearing in mind that the new Laser techniques need considerable co-operation with the firm in Newcastle which has been concerned with working with the Royal Victoria Infirmary?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if there are to be further runs of experiments involving Government finance there will be many parties to be consulted.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on Malta. Subsequently, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a Statement on the Report of the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority. I would also inform your Lordships that dinner will be served this evening between quarter to seven and eight o'clock.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
2.45 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. STARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee have considered the right of members of the House to ask Starred Questions and are of opinion that questions are asked by leave of the House. They, therefore, consider that the form of words at present in use, namely, "I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper is appropriate and should be continued.
2. ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS: SPECIAL ORDERS
The Committee recommend that Standing Order 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be amended so that Special Orders are given the same precedence on the Order Paper as Public Bills and Measures.
3. PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE
The Committee have considered the procedure followed when several bills to which no amendment has been put down are consecutively to be considered in Committee, and are unlikely to be debated: and whether it is necessary for the House to be resumed after consideration of each bill. They consider that the rights of Peers to raise points in Committee would in no way be affected, if the bills in question were grouped and considered successively in Committee. The House would not be resumed until the last of the Bills had been considered in Committee, and on the resumption of the House each bill would be separately reported. The Committee regard this as a desirable simplification of present procedure and recommend that it be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, that the Report be agreed to. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
2.55 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to move, That this House takes note of recent developments in the economic situation. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I can assure your Lordships that although my speech will be concerned with some of the subjects in the speech of my right honourable friend on the Budget, it will not be as long as his was on that occasion; nor, I fear, will it be anything like as brilliant as his was. But I shall attempt to continue further the debate which we had in this House in January. That was in the context of the public expenditure cuts announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on January 16.
We now debate the economic situation in the context of the Budget Statement of March 19. The sequence is a logical one, and in my speech I shall attempt to produce the framework of the decision which the Government have now taken. Although some of our critics have sought to throw doubt on the point of the logical order of events, the Government were clear at the time of devaluation that the measures then announced would not suffice to make a success of the operation, and that further measures would be needed to release resources. But given

333
the relatively high level of unemployment then prevailing, and the inevitable uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of the response of exports and imports to the new parity, we did not wish to engineer this release before the additional demand for exports, and for import substitutes, had started to come through. Our intention was to act during the course of the ensuing months, first on public expenditure—since cut-backs in that field necessarily take time to become effective —and later on private consumption. We have seen the unfolding of that strategy with, as I indicated at the beginning, the public expenditure curbs of January 16, and then, three weeks ago, with the severe restraints on consumer spending embodied in the Budget.
The character of this strategy was, as I have indicated, expounded at great length and with great clarity by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would only wish to restate in rather summary form the economic basis of the Budget Statement. That Statement, I would emphasise, was formulated in fact before the momentous Washington Conference of Central Bank Governors that took place on the eve of the Budget, on March 16 and 17. My noble friend Lord Beswick will have something to say about this Conference, in the setting of the international situation, when he comes to wind up our debate this evening. I would merely observe here that although the shape of the Budget was decided, as I have said, before the Conference, it will, by fostering the strength of sterling, contribute powerfully to the task of restoring the stability of the international monetary system and guiding the development of that system along rational lines.
The purpose of the Budget is to help create conditions at home for the achievement, as soon as possible, of a balance of payments surplus of the order of £500 million a year. This surplus which must be sustained over a period of years, is required to enable us to repay heavy overseas debts, to rebuild the reserves and to provide a margin against temporary vicissitudes. We all know of the desperate consequences of even a temporary vicissitude on the international monetary situation. To achieve this surplus is a formidable undertaking, but it is not one by any means beyond our reach. Other countries in the recent
334
past—France, Italy and Germany, are prominent examples—have successfully accomplished large adjustments in their external position when circumstances require it. What others have done we can, and must, ourselves do.
The prospect facing the Chancellor in contemplating his Budget was that the growth of one important component of demand on our national resources, namely, public expenditure, would show a sharp slowing-down in the coming twelve to eighteen months—this slowing-down reflecting the firm action taken by the Government in recent months to which I earlier referred. On the other hand, personal consumption—which is the dominant element in demand, accounting for more than half the total —would, on best estimates available to the Government, show an appreciable rise of about 1 per cent. a year in real terms between the second half of last year and the middle of next year. This late of increase, moreover, would have been accompanied by a pick-up in industrial investment and in stock-building. It was clear that the increase in demand from these sources taken together would not leave enough room in the economy for the required increase in production for export and for import-saving. Personal consumption would therefore have to be cut back sharply if we were not to face the prospect of a renewal of inflationary pressures and could not hope to secure an improvement on the necessary scale. The Chancellor's judgment was that it would in fact be necessary to impose a cut-back in consumption of about 2 per cent. a year—a cut-back from the rise of about 1 per cent. which would probably otherwise have taken place.
I will come in a moment to the tax measures by which this cut-back is to be implemented. Before doing so, however, I wish to emphasise that, notwithstanding the severity of these measures, the prospect is still for a considerably faster rate of growth in the economy over the period ahead than has been recorded in recent years, and much faster than otherwise would have been possible without devaluation. Let me admit that the Government are very disappointed that much of their pans has been dislocated by the failure to attain the increase in production on which we had counted and

335
of which we had told the country. We now estimate that total output—the gross domestic product in real terms—will expand from the second half of 1967 to the first half of 1969 by at least 3 per cent. a year. This compares with a rate of expansion of no more than about 1 per cent. between the second half of 1966 and the second half of 1967. Moreover, if exports perform better than we have allowed—and the prospects for world trade are reasonably favourable and the competitive cost advantage gained by our exporters from devaluation is considerable —then we shall be in a position to achieve, and in a position to afford, a faster rate of growth in production.
I should like to answer briefly those who have argued—I do not think many of your Lordships are among them—that the Chancellor has been too severe, that, in the current jargon, he has been guilty of "overkill". (They have enough jargon in the military field—it is a bit much when it spills over into other fields.) Some of these critics rest their case on the belief that productivity is likely to be growing faster now and henceforth than in the past, partly because, for example, of the Government's own many-sided efforts—I stress this, and progress is being made—to re-structure the economy and lift efficiency all round. Indeed, this could be so, and we earnestly hope that productivity will grow faster. But an improvement in the rate of productivity advance is not something that should, in our present critical economic circumstances, be counted on in advance. The right approach is to proceed cautiously, but to be ready to take the advantages of higher productivity if this is achieved. But if we are to move into a phase of substantial balance-of-payments surplus, as we must, the proportion of national output devoted to private consumption has to be reduced whatever the rate of growth. In other words, even if we could have risked assuming a high rate of growth in productivity and output in 1967 and 1968, it would not have removed the need for a tough Budget aimed at reducing, for the time being, the share of the national income taken by the ordinary consumer.
Given that action had to be taken on the scale I have indicated, the Chan-
336
cellor had to make a choice of the right mix of taxes. Of course, individual tax increases will always be criticised, but I suggest that the onus is on the critics to say what they would have done in the place of any of the proposals which they criticise. In advance of the Budget, many people, including the Confederation of British Industry, urged the Chancellor to direct his measures mainly towards taxes on spending; and that is what he did. The general reaction of the country to the Budget has indicated that most people endorse this policy.
When taxation is discussed, the point is often made that direct taxation is progressive and indirect taxation is regressive; indeed, this has been very much the case in the past. Like many of these generalisations, it may not be as true in the present as it has been in the past. This is not the whole truth to-day. Perhaps what has changed the situation more than anything else is the fact that as incomes have increased income tax is no longer a tax of which the impact is felt only by the few with high incomes. It now falls on those with only average incomes, and even on those with incomes below average. It is also the case that our system of indirect taxes can be used very flexibly and selectively, so that its effect can be minimised on items which are bought by poorer people. It is evident from an examination of the increases which the Chancellor made that this was very much in his mind. Taking the increases in purchase tax, for example, the lowest rate which falls on furniture, clothing and household utensils, is increased by only 1½ per cent.; and the rates correspondingly on other items go up according to the degree of their importance to the wider section of the community and according to the particular type of purchaser. Thus we find that the rate on items like jewellery, furs, et cetera, is increased by 22½ per cent. This selective approach is also shown by increasing the tax on wines and spirits and leaving the working man's beer alone.
While tobacco and betting are not items of expenditure confined to the wealthy, most people would agree that they are objects of expenditure from which more revenue could be drawn in our present circumstances. I remember the late Sir Stafford Cripps describing these as voluntary taxes, which is not

337
perhaps an entirely satisfactory description but it helps to indicate—and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, will remember this matter and probably criticised it at the time in another place—that there is some justification for it. To take another example, the increased taxes on motoring may be criticised on the ground that a car is by no means a luxury, but it remains true that only half the households in the country possess one. It is also the case that many of the goods which have been taxed, such as cars and washing machines, are durable goods; they do not need to be purchased every week. Therefore, for many people the taxes result not so much in lower standards of living as in an incentive to increase savings.
Perhaps I may here make a brief reference to the proposal for a national lottery. Although the Chancellor emphasised that he was not looking to this to make a significant contribution to the solution of his budgetary problems, and I do not propose to discuss it now, I thought it right to point out to your Lordships that, since we do not have the opportunity to debate each provision of the Finance Bill in detail, the Government would be very willing to co-operate in providing an opportunity, so that your Lordships may, if you so wish, express an entirely free view on a subject which must be a matter of controversy. It may well be that if that is desired a special debate on a suitable Motion could be arranged.
I believe that most people would agree that the Chancellor got all he could from indirect taxes on spending, consistently with graduating the increases so as to minimise the burden on items bought by the less well-to-do. But that only spreads the burden on the higher income groups up to a point. No increase in indirect taxation can mean very much to the very rich, because they are sheltered by their wealth from marginal changes in the tax on particular goods and services. I am stating this as a fact without attaching any moral or political judgment to it. The Chancellor therefore decided to introduce, for one year only, the special charge on investment income. We shall not want in this general debate to go into the details of this charge, but some
338
noble Lords may wish to discuss it. I believe, however, that most fair minded people would accept it as right in principle that people with large investment incomes and large amounts of capital from which they are derived should be asked to make a contribution in our present circumstances.
Finally, I come to S.E.T. I am well aware that S.E.T. is not a popular tax, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, kindly commiserated with me for having to defend it on an earlier occasion. I admit that I had in those early days certain doubts about it, but I am really rather encouraged by the development of S.E.T. and by what it has achieved. I would ask your Lordships who criticise it to consider what was the alternative. Having raised as much as he fairly could from indirect taxes, from those with very large investment incomes and from shutting loopholes, the Chancellor needed another £150 million a year. He could have raised this by increasing the standard rate of income tax by 6d., or he could have increased S.E.T. by 50 per cent.
Those who criticise the increase in S.E.T. should say what alternatives there are. I realise that the direct posing of questions is not always fair, but I think it is relevant in this case. Some of the arguments and criticisms against S.E.T. have been extravagant to the extent that they showed little regard to the real facts. One thing that has been repeatedly said is at the collection of the tax is expensive. In fact, the estimated cost compares very favourably with the cost of collection of other taxes.
Then it is often asserted that the tax has failed in its purpose of producing economies in the use of labour in service industries and thus freeing labour for manufacturing. I do not know what is the evidence of those who make those assertions. Indeed, the employment figures for June, 1966, to June, 1967, show that employment in distribution, construction and miscellaneous services, including hotels, hairdressers, laundries and so on, has fallen by relatively more than employment in manufacturing. The underlying causes of any change in employment trends are inevitably complex, and there-fore it might be premature to claim that this is entirely due to S.E.T. But these trends are quite unlike anything that we have know in the past six or seven years.

339
when the tendency has been for employment in the construction and distributive trades to increase at a much faster rate.
What is perhaps most remarkable is that the decline in employment in the construction industry has actually been associated with a very significant increase in output. In fact, productivity has risen by between 7 and 10 per cent. in the space of one year. One cannot say that S.E.T. is necessarily responsible for all of this, but I think it is fair to claim that productivity gains like this would not have been achieved without some stimulus.
Moreover, as your Lordships know, the Chancellor has invited Mr. Reddaway, the Director of the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, to conduct an inquiry into the working of S.E.T. The terms of reference have been published and I shall not weary the House with them now. In his Budget speech my right honourable friend said that the increases he had announced would not prevent any desirable recasting of the tax in the light of Mr. Reddaway's report and any other available evidence.
At the same time as the tax was increased my right honourable friend made further refinements. Not only has the effective rate payable in respect of part-time workers remained at the same level—12s. 6d. for a man and 6s. 3d. for a woman—but there is a new concession extending those part-time rates to all men and women over 65. This constitutes a positive incentive for employers to make use of part-timers and elderly people.
I now come to a matter which I know will be of concern to noble Lords, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, and others who are interested in the Highlands and in development areas. My right honourable friend has decided to refund S.E.T. to hotels in certain rural parts of development areas. This should be a help in those places where tourism is a staple industry. Of course, devaluation increases the demands on this industry and it is right that it should be ready to meet those demands. The Government regard tourism as a very important foreign exchange-earning industry, and details of a scheme for helping hotel
340
development will shortly be publishd in a White Paper.
Of course, this does not go as far as has been asked for by some people who want exemption for services which assist exports or invisible earnings. However, it has been recognised that a point comes when, if you make too many exceptions and exemptions, you endanger the structure of the tax as a whole. As I said, those who are not yet satisfied can bear in mind the willingness to reconsider this tax and how it is levied, in the light of Mr. Reddaway's report.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, am I to take it from the tremendous defence which he has made of the tax that if Mr. Reddaway were to suggest the abolition of it the Government would not accept that recommendation?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must admit that I was getting rather enthusiastic about the tax—more than I was on the last occasion. But I think I ought not to anticipate any decision of my right honourable friend. I should have thought that the report was unlikely to yield that result, and therefore, although the question was worth asking, it is not one that it is wise to answer.
I must apologise for dealing at some length with fiscal policy, and I must turn to the other side of the Government's Budget strategy; namely, the prices and incomes policy. This is perhaps one of the area that, for understandable reasons, arouses the most controversy and the most anxiety. Whether we are able to seize the opportunity for a more sustained and more secure economic growth depends not only on demand management but on our success in controlling costs. The two policies must be complementary. In our view, neither can succeed without the other. I hope that the majority of your Lordships, even if you may not agree with the methods, would accept this basic economic proposition, unless one moves to very different policies indeed.
Fiscal policy reduces demand and therefore the upward pull on wages. Prices and incomes policy both reduces demand—and the Chancellor took this into account when he was preparing his Budget—and restrains the upward push on costs. Moreover, if the opportunity

341
to increase our exports afforded by devaluation is lost because rising wages put up labour costs, we shall face far worse consequences than restraint on incomes. The only alternative is still higher unemployment or a further economic crisis, with inevitable repercussions on world trade, the end result of which could be the threat of massive unemployment of a kind which was such a tragedy before the war and which mercifully we have not known since then.
Thus the primary purpose of prices and incomes policy is to maintain the competitiveness and economic growth of this country. The second purpose of this policy and the supporting reserve powers is to ensure the continuation of the fairness and equity which the Budget has so clearly sought to establish. As the Budget measures take effect, it would be wrong for those with superior bargaining power to be able to secure increases in spending power which the country as a whole cannot afford; and this would also add to the weight to be borne by those not able to protect themselves—for instance, old people and those on small, fixed incomes. It must be remembered that in the end the consumer pays for most wage increases, and we are all consumers.
My Lords, we considered very carefully whether the incomes policy we need could be fairly and effectively applied by wholly voluntary means or whether it would be enough to ask Parliament to renew the expiring parts of existing legislation in the summer. We have had to conclude that neither of these courses would be adequate in present circumstances, and we shall be bringing forward proposals for further legislation after the Recess. Noble Lords will have seen the White Paper. It remains the Government's firm intention to continue the development of the policy for productivity, prices and incomes to the fullest extent practicable on the voluntary basis, in consultation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., and all the statutory powers will be held in reserve and used only to the extent necessary when voluntary arrangements are not being properly observed.
Because of the need to secure restraint and because of the need for equity, the Government reject the idea of a "free-for-all" for incomes and prices. On the
342
other hand, with prices rising as a result of devaluation and of the Budget measures it would be unrealistic to ask for another standstill, which in any case could not be maintained for more than a few months. A standstill would only cause unnecessary hardship to the low-paid workers, and would certainly not create—and I want to stress this—a favourable climate for increasing productivity, which is one of cur principal aims. The Government have taken the only rational choice in further developing the incomes policy.
My Lords, there are two points in the White Paper which deserve particular emphasis. The first and main point is productivity. The Government wish to encourage agreements which genuinely raise productivity and efficiency, thereby helping to stabilise or reduce prices. Genuine productivity agreements and major reorganisations of wage and salary structures which can be justified on productivity and efficiency grounds can be accepted, and indeed are to be encouraged. The appointment of my right honourable friend as First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity reflects the Government's concern to do everything possible to encourage the rapid increase in productivity which is so essential in the interests of exports and import saving. It will help once again to re-emphasise that this policy is one for productivity prices and incomes.
The policy is also intended to continue to give full weight to the interests of low-paid workers—those who genuinely are low-paid—but not of those workers who in the past have secured increases in pay through automatic preservation of traditional differentials when increases have been agreed for workers on the minimum rates. Low-paid workers will be able to benefit up to the ceiling where their claim satisfies the appropriate criterion, and there can be above-ceiling increases for them within a settlement which overall does not exceed the ceiling. I realise that this question of differentials is a difficult and delicate one, and I also realise that some of my noble friends in particular may feel that they would wish to explore the ideas rather more fully. But we shall have the opportunity to do that when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House;

343
and I realise that I can give only the the briefest outline of the policy.
My Lords, as regards prices, there is bound to be a rise as a result of devaluation and flowing from the fiscal changes of the Budget. There will also be some other increases which will be justified under the criteria for price increases, which are contained in the new White Paper. But one of the objects of the Government's policy for prices is to prevent unjustifiable price increases, and the Government will exercise a rigorous scrutiny under the extensive early-warning arrangements of proposed price increases. These early-warning arrangements will be extended; and the Government will keep general watch over retail prices, also.
The prices and incomes policy is an important element in the Government's strategy for transforming the balance of payments from a deficit to a substantial surplus. It is not an easy policy to pursue, offending as it does many of the long-established notions of our industrial and commercial system. But the Government are not putting reliance on this or, indeed, on any other single aspect of policy. Prices and incomes and fiscal policies have to be made to work together and to complement each other. In fact, a background of fiscal restraint combined with equal sacrifice by all except the very poorest is by far the best environment for the effective operation of a prices and incomes policy.
I wonder from time to time what the Opposition would have done. I do not think they can deny that a shift from consumption to exports is needed, but we should like to know how they would have both achieved it and maintained it. They certainly did neither while they were in office, and we are still suffering as a result. They allowed public and private consumption to go uncontrolled in each Election year and our competitiveness to deteriorate in every year.
One alternative to the Budget measures well loved by some Members of the
344
Opposition, but I think perhaps not all those on the Opposition Front Bench, is the idea of a sudden, massive and absolute cut in public expenditure. But while decrying the total of this expenditure they have opposed the majority of the detailed cuts we have already announced, and they have even added a lot of expenditure plans of their own, including a return to East of Suez. I now have the Liberals with me! The truth of the matter is that, as a proportion of national income, our public expenditure is not out of line with that of other advanced countries. Large-scale absolute cuts would simply mean a more niggardly provision of public services than most of our neighbours have, and sudden cuts would in the long run be downright wasteful. Another alternative put forward is that instead of a reliance on increased taxation there should be a reliance on increased savings. But this would have been a dangerous choice. We cannot predict the future course of savings with accuracy, especially when a cutback in the standard of living is necessary, and a heavy reliance upon this would not have measured up to the needs of the situation.
My Lords, I would suggest to your Lordships that the Budget fulfils our economic needs, but at the same time the increases in family allowances and the selective nature of the tax increases themselves should help to ensure that those of our citizens who are most vulnerable are affected least by the impact of the necessary increases in indirect taxation. We must face the fact that the measures contained in the Budget are essential, and it is our contention that they are fair as well. There are no alternatives if we are to contribute, as we must, to the overriding objectives of a surplus on our balance of payments which is the basis of our own prospects of a rise in the standards of living and a rise in our contribution to the alleviation of poverty in so much of the world. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of recent deevlopments in the economic situation.—(Lord Shackleton.)

MALTA DOCKYARD
3.30 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may at this point I should like to make a Statement on the Malta Dockyard. In my statement to the House on April 3 I undertook to give the House details of the additional financial help which we shall make available to the Malta Government as a result of our recent talks with the Prime Minister of Malta about the Malta Dockyard. The Malta Parliament in the early hours of this morning unanimously—and I stress the word "unanimously"—passed legislation bringing the Malta Dockyard into public ownership, thus ensuring its continued operation. It is the intention of the Malta Government to develop and diversify the Dockyard and to make it more competitive.
Under this legislation the Malta Government have acquired the shares of Bailey (Malta) Limited against payment of such compensation as may be determined by the Maltese courts, in accordance with Section 38 of the Malta Constitution. Provision is made by the legislation for the transfer to a newly established corporation of the assets of Bailey (Malta) Limited necessary for the running of the Dockyard and certain of its liabilities. The legislation also provides for the winding up of Bailey (Malta) Limited. The price for the assets so transferred, to be paid to the liquidator, will be established by the Maltese courts.
The responsibility for the Malta Dockyard now rests wholly with the Government of Malta. I am glad to say that we are able to make an important contribution towards meeting the cost to the Malta Government of putting their plans into effect. First, we intend to pay over to the Malta Government a sum not exceeding an amount equivalent to our receipts as creditors in the winding up of Bailey (Malta) Limited in respect of our loans to the Dockyard.
Secondly, in recognition of the importance of the future prosperity of the Dockyard, we are allocating for the Dockyard £3 million of the £51 million made available to the Malta Government under the Financial Agreement of September, 1964. The Malta Government will be able, if this should prove necessary, to draw on this £3 million for purposes related to the transfer of the
346
Dockyard to Malta, the balance being devoted to the development and diversification of the Dockyard. At the end of the 10-year period—that is, the 10 years following the 1964 Agreement—covered by the Financial Agreement an additional £3 million of aid will be provided for development projects. This Money will be disbursed by March 31, 1976. In addition we intend to provide a feasibility study of the development and diversification of the Dockyard. The two Governments are already in contact over this, and we hope that arrangements for the study can be completed soon.
The result that we have achieved is that the Malta Government have been able to acquire the Dockyard undertaking and are in a position to develop it for the benefit of Malta. I am sure that your Lordships are as satisfied as I am that we have been able to bring to a successful conclusion a problem that has for so long created such difficulty to the Governments both of Malta and of the United Kingdom.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having made that Statement and also for its contents. I think all noble Lords will share the Government's satisfaction at the end of this chapter. I am sure that everyone in the House will recognise the dependence which the economy of Malta still has upon the Dockyaid, and that the assurance of the Dockyard's future will make a great deal of difference to that economy. Incidentally, we ought also to recognise that it is a very good Dockyard; when it was a Royal Naval Dockyard it did excellent work. I think the House will recognise also that with the run-down in our defence commitments in Malta we had, to a very large degree, some duty to the people of Malta to safeguard their economy. In this connection, too, we must be pleased at the outcome of these talks. I wish to ask the noble Lord only one question because I am not qualified to judge whether this sum of money, which is very large, is adequate. Have the Government of Malta expressed satisfaction at the size of this grant?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know whether arty Government ever really expresses satisfaction. I can only say that privately they have expressed the greatest satisfaction. I know

347
that, after some pretty hard bargaining, the talks ended in an atmosphere of great good will, and I remarked before I left that I hoped I should not be in trouble when I got back to England. I think the noble Lord will appreciate from the Statement that no extra cost will be falling on the taxpayers in the next few years. There is a diversification of funds to produce a final total. I think myself that it is a very satisfactory agreement and that it is very satisfactory (and very remarkable) that this Bill was passed unanimously by the Malta Parliament.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the Statement and to say once again how grateful we are for the work the noble Lord has done in this connection. If I may venture to express a personal opinion, I would say that the diversification of the Dockyard may perhaps be counted as the most important aspect of the Statement. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to say what organisation will be entrusted with this very important task—whether private enterprise in the United Kingdom will have the opportunity of helping in this diversification.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer that question at the moment. These are very important matters, and they are primarily matters for the Malta Government. But in practice they will depend a great deal upon the results of the feasibility study which the British Government have offered to provide. I would not rule out any particular type of development—including British private enterprise. I would merely hope that some of it will be more successful than it has been in the past.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he can tell us the total amount of money that has been given to the Malta Government since the Naval Dockyard was abandoned and how this compares with the actual cost to us during its period as a naval dockyard? I should like to say that I imply no criticism in any way of the arrangement, which I think is admirable and reflects credit on my noble friend personally.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first may I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it is a very fine
348
dockyard indeed and well equipped. So far as my noble friend's question is concerned, I think I should be unwise to attempt to answer in detail such a clever question, which I am sure was put for information but which is beyond my limited capabilities. The British Government's loan to the Dockyard amounts to £8½ million, including accrued interest calculated on April 9, 1968. The sum is very considerable.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask a question about something which, I think, was in the Statement made by the noble Lord; but I am not certain whether I heard it aright. He said the value of the compensation was to be determined by the Maltese courts. Was the amount to be determined in accordance with legislation already on the Statute Book or with the legislation that was passed last night?
LORD SHACKLETON: I have not seen the legislation; but, as I understand it, it applies the provisions of Section 38 of the Malta Constitution as to compensation and it derives from that particular section. This provides that adequate compensation will be paid for the shares acquired; but that what is adequate will be determined by the Maltese courts in accordance with Section 38. Any claims which may be advanced against Bailey (Malta) Limited by C. H. Bailey Limited or the directors of Bailey (Malta)—I am talking about claims as creditors as opposed to shareholders—will be dealt with by the liquidator in the usual way in the winding-up of the company.

AGE OF MAJORITY: THE LATEY REPORT
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with the permission of the House and of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, may I intervene here to make a Statement on the age of majority?
As soon as Parliamentary time can be found, I hope to introduce legislation to implement most of the recommendations made by the Latey Committee on the Age of Majority, whose Report (Cmnd. 3342) was presented to Parliament in July, 1967.
The Committee considered the law relating to minors in England and Wales and unanimously recommended that most

349
of the present limits on full capacity in civil law should be removed for persons between the ages of 18 and 21, and 9 out of 11 members of the Committee recommended that all such limits should be removed.
Having carefully considered the Committee's proposals as well as the debates in another place on November 20, 1967, and in your Lordships' House on November 22, 1967, the Government have decided that it would be right to reduce the age of majority to 18, and in general they propose to follow the recommendations of the majority of the Committee.
The legislation to be introduced will reduce from 21 to 18 the age at which a person has full powers to enter into a binding contract, to give a valid receipt and to hold and dispose of property. The minimum age for making a will, for acting as a trustee or personal representative, for acquiring an independent domicile and for consenting to giving of blood will also be 18. The need for parental or court consent to the marriage of a person between the ages of 18 and 21 will also be removed; and the powers of the courts to make adoption orders, to award custody of and access to children and to make them wards of court up to the age of 21 will be similarly curtailed. Certain other amendments to the law affecting minors will also be made, including a statutory power for a minor of 16 or over to consent to medical or dental treatment, including blood tests.
Certain of the recommendations of the Report will not be covered by this legislation: any changes in the law of taxation, for example, will have to be considered for a Finance Bill. Moreover, some of the more detailed recommendations are still being studied. The intended legislation will not affect the age of voting, which was outside the Committee's terms of reference and concerning which the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law has recently reported.
Noble Lords may also wish to know that, in accordance with the recommendations of the Latey Committee, I have asked the Law Commission to consider the Committee's proposals for substantive changes in the law of infants' contracts and the structural changes in the courts which they suggested. These two topics fit conveniently into the Commission's first and second programmes.
350
The Latey Committee's Inquiry was of course confined to England and Wales: in many respects minors in Scotland are already free from the restrictions which apply to young persons under English law. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is however at present considering whether legislation is required to amend the law of Scotland in relation to minors.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that there will be a widespread welcome for that part of his announcement which relates to property matters, and also for his decision to refer to the Law Commission the Latey Committee's proposals regarding the law on infants' contracts? —though the debate in November showed that there was considerable divergence among your Lordships as to the appropriate minimum age for marriage without the consent of the parents or of the court. There are a number of pertinent questions which I suggest might more appropriately be asked when we see the Bill, rather than this afternoon, but may I ask the noble and learned Lord straight away whether the Government realise that it will be vital to overhaul and develop the curricula of schools if boys and girls in future are to be fitted to carry adult responsibilities in a wide range of matters so much sooner after leaving school than is the case under the law at present?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making his Statement, which I generally welcome. But does not the noble and learned Lord feel that it is slightly, or completely, anomalous to carry through these proposed recommendations and still leave the age of voting where it is? Surely if someone can be a trustee at 18 he should be entrusted with a vote.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Cumnor Lind Lord Byers, for what they have said. I remember that in the debate we had the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, intimated that on the age of free marriage his own opinions would be more in line with those of the minority of two on the Committee,

351
rather than with the others. But as he has said, we ought perhaps to debate that if and when the Bill is introduced.
No doubt my right honourable friend the Minister of Education and Science will bear in mind what the noble Lord has said about school curricula. I am not quite clear about this myself. I must not argue it this afternoon, but I have thought for a long time that we do not do enough in the schools to tell young people what marriage really means, emotionally and economically. But those aged 18, 19 and 20 have, after all, been out in the world earning their own living now for three, four and five years. But no doubt the point will be borne in mind.
With reference to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the age of majority is one thing and voting rights are another, partly because voting rights, by agreement with the Parties, have never been changed without being considered by a Speaker's Conference. It is therefore right and proper that the voting age should have been entirely excluded from the Latey Committee's terms of reference, and they did not deal with it. The Government have thought it right to deal with the recommendations of the Latey Committee on their merits. They will shortly be considering the many recommendations which have been made by the all-Party Speaker's Conference.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend one question? He made no reference to minors in the Armed Forces. Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this matter, in view of the recommendations of the Latey Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the position with regard to those, as my noble friend Lord Brockway may remember, is that there were three recommendations. The first was that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right on application within six months, instead of three months, from the date of their entry. The noble Lord may remember that a Statement made in another place, and repeated here on February 5, said that that recommendation would be acted upon at once, because none of these needs legislation since there
352
is existing legislation under which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can carry them out by regulation. The second recommendation was that all boy entrants should be entitled to be released as of right on application within three months after their 18th birthday and I think that on the same occasion it was stated that the Government have decided to set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to consider more carefully than has yet been done what would be the precise effect on the Services if the recommendation was implemented. The third was that parental consent to enlistment under the age of 18 instead of 17½, should be required, and it was stated in the House on February 5 that if and when the age of majority was increased to 18, that would be implemented by administrative action.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION
3.49 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House for being in this unusual position. I have been trying to persuade my noble Leader, whom we are all so glad to see here to-day, to relieve the House and myself of an ordeal, but I have failed. Nothing that I shall say will have either his authority or his charm. My speech will, as it were, be a poor thing but all mine own, and let no one try to pin upon him the responsibility for my thoughts or for my method of expressing them. Having made that disclaimer, I must admit that I hope he and my noble friends will agree with most of what I shall be saying, and that your Lordships will not take too unkindly the intervention at this stage of a banker and industrialist who has never lost his love for or interest in political affairs.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has given us a lucid and concise account of Government policy as unfolded in the Budget Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has dangled in front of me some baits and asked me some questions. I must tell him that I am not going to rise to those baits, however attractively they were put in front of me; but I hope that the House will find at the end of what I have to say that I have dealt with the points that the noble Lord raised.

353
In this debate we are asked to take note of recent developments in the economic situation. In doing this I shall go slightly wider than the noble Lord. There has been among those developments the successful series of international discussions about gold and special drawing rights, about which we are going to hear later. All I would say on that subject is that I welcome those developments and congratulate the Government on the part they played in achieving them.
It is on the home developments that I am going to ask your Lordships to concentrate your attention. These developments have included the Budget, the White Paper on productivity, prices and incomes, and the reshuffle of the Cabinet—the creation of what is called the "Mark II" Wilson Cabinet, whatever that may mean. Perhaps one should add to these three developments the article written by the immediately past President of the Board of Trade calling for the abolition of the Department of Economic Affairs, and the illuminating series of articles and statements of the immediately past Foreign Secretary, combined with his adjuration, not, I think, addressed to this side of the House, that there must be an end to double talk.
These developments at home are the proof, if proof were needed, of the disastrous state into which our economy has been allowed to slide in these last three years. Some would say instead of "allowed to slide", "has been pushed". How most quickly our country's economy can be led back to good health is a question that must lie behind all the points that will be made by myself and others this afternoon. There will be, I think, others besides myself who, being convinced opponents of devaluation of sterling as a policy, had formed in their own minds a clearish idea of the dangers that would follow devaluation in the international field outside this country and of the damage that would be done inside this country to our standard of living. But few, I think, imagined—I certainly did not—that the bank rate would stay at 8 per cent. for four months (it has only just come down) and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to add £923 million to the annual taxation bill. And few imagined—certainly the Prime Minister did not, judging from his statement
354
—that the Government would deem it necessary to have statutory control of prices and incomes for a further eighteen months.
Of the Budget itself there hay been a wide measure of understanding and a good deal of support from intellectuals and those engaged, like myself, in business and in industry. The support has been for the Budget's general a ms and for a great part of the language in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained his proposals and purposes, and I join in the tribute that the noble Lord the Leader of the House paid to him for that. The £923 million of additional taxation was thought to be on the top side of what it would be right to do and was, I think, welcomed all the more for that reason.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was also applauded for his decision not to add anything further to direct taxation on earnings and investment incomes under £3,000 a year. Those wise decisions outweighed some formidable objections that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that he had to the increase in the selective employment tax (though I notice that the noble Lord opposite defended that tax—I do not defend it); the objections that were justifiably felt to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's cavalier treatment of the, benefits hitherto derived by women and children under the Married Women's Property Act; the objections to the, retrospective effect of some of the proposals, particularly on death duty points, and the objections to the capital levy, for that is what it was, dressed up in the old clothes of a special charge on high investment incomes. Objection was also taken to the rather out-of-character, sneering language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in explaining the need for this capital levy and the scarcely veiled threats of some other wealth tax later. I think one might ask: Does a capita I levy fit in with a Budget that has as its principal aim the reduction of consumer spending. The answer given has been the answer of fairness. But this really is a concession to the omnipotent doctrine of equal misery for all.
All these feelings, good and bad, I understand and share. But these swingeing increases in taxation would not be necessary if the Government could have

355
controlled their own expenditure and kept it in these last two years within the rate of increase of the gross national product. Nor, I think, would they have been necessary in such degree if the Government had taken some fiscal action immediately after devaluation, action designed quite deliberately to show our people then that devaluation was a defeat for them as well as for the Government and that standards of living must drop for the time being. In the carefully calculated economic arguments to the contrary—and the noble Lord has reinforced them to-day with his explanation of the timing part of the strategy of the Government's policy—human reactions were forgotten, and this led to psychologically mistaken inaction.
I have no doubt that the Budget and the Chancellor's statement have gone some way to starting up again the seeds of confidence in the minds of our overseas friends; but let there be no mistake, that confidence is not going to be easy to restore fully. My banking interests have taken me probably to as many different overseas countries in these last four months as any of your Lordships. In every country I have been faced with the same questions and doubts, put forward not only by businessmen hut also by officials and Central Bank men. Shall we in Britain have to devalue again in 1968? That has been the universal question. And my universal reply has been, "Certainly not." I have followed that up by asking why they thought that we might have to devalue again. Various answers have been given to that question, but they have all contained this one same point. This is what they have said. "Britain had to devalue last November principally because your Government had been spending too much in recent years. You don't seem to have stopped that."
Sitting as I do on this side of the House, all my patriotism and a good deal of my imagination were challenged. The answer which I gave before January's announcement and the answer which I have given since have been the same: the Government will be forced by circumstances to put their house in order, and they have begun to do it. But here, not for the first time, I raise my small voice in condemnation of the policy that allows
356
public spending to increase substantially faster than the rate of growth of the national product. In wiser days this Government themselves have taken approximately the same view. In their National Plan in 1965, actually at page 20 of it, they adopted a target of 4¼ per cent. per year for the growth in public spending in the five years 1964 to 1970. They adopted this target because they said that that was what the country could afford, and that was what the country could afford against the target of 25 per cent. economic growth for the nation between the years 1964 and 1970. That was an annual growth of about 3·8 per cent. In fact, as your Lordships know, at best it seems that we shall now achieve not 25 per cent. growth in those six years, but 17 per cent.
But what has happened to this carefully planned growth of public spending? We were told in a Statement made in another place by the Chief Secretary that public expenditure has not grown faster than was intended; that in fact we are precisely on the target, and that after the much slower increase in Government expenditure now decided upon over the next two years the average rate of increase, in real terms, over each of the five years between 1964 and 1970 will be 4¼ per cent., just as was originally planned. I must interpose here that I thought I detected from what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said a reference to a sharp slowing down in Government spending. I think what he meant was a sharp slowing down in the increase in Government spending. I do not call it a very sharp slowing down.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. If I did make an error, I hope your Lordships will allow me to make my correction to Hansard by this intervention.
LORD ALDINGTON: I thank the noble Lord. To return to the hard-pressed Chief Secretary. Since the National Plan was published there have been many announcements of cuts, and noble Lords opposite have joined in commending them to us. The most important were in July, 1966, July, 1967, November 20. 1967, and January 16, 1968. We are asked to believe that the National Plan, minus July, 1966, cuts, minus July, 1967, cuts, minus November, 1967, cuts, minus January, 1968, cuts,

357
equals the National Plan. I must acknowledge that I am indebted to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's son-in-law for this equation. The explanation of this curious mathematics would be interesting. I fear that either the cuts or the control over the planned expenditure—or both—were phoney. However that may be, the target claimed for this expenditure is the wrong target now. The fact is that the nation's output in 1970, on present plans, will be over £3,000 million less in 1964 money terms than the National Plan assumed.
The protagonists of high and increasing Government expenditure bring to their support, as did the noble Lord this afternoon, statisics showing that other countries spend as high a proportion of their gross national product through the Government as we do, or even a higher proportion. This, I must say, seems to me to be quite irrelevant to our present problems. We in Britain are struggling in a highly competitive world ourselves to be more competitive than others. We depend more, I think, than any other country on imports for our food, on imports for the raw materials for our industry, and, therefore, for employment.
Just as any industrial company struggling to improve its efficiency year by year has to watch its overhead expenditure which is not efficiently productive, so, in my submission, a great nation like ours must watch most carefully over the growth of its national overhead expenditure. Every bit of Government expenditure goes, in one way or another, on to our industrial costs, and a great deal of it takes away from productive working industry or commerce valuable trained men and women. Of course, some part of Government and public expenditure—for example, in the nationalised industries, in research and so on—is strictly relevant to industrial capacity and output; and a great deal of the rest also has a substantial economic value in the long run—for example, expenditure on education and health.
That there must be some limit to the increase in all these types of expenditure, however socially desirable, even the Government themselves have frequently admitted. But the question is what that limit should be. I am going to resist here the temptation to reply to the Gov-
358
ernment's question: What do you propose? I do not think it is for the Government to say to a critic of its policy —and I hope a constructive critic—that that critic should do the Government's job for them. It is my task to establish in front of your Lordships the proposition that Government expenditure has risen too fast, ought to be better controlled and ought to be kept down. The Government disagree with that. Until they agree with it, I do not think it lies in them to ask me what to do. Let them do their job, and I will do mine.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may again interrupt the noble Lord, I do not think the Government disagree in regard to the extent to which Government expenditure has risen. But I do not think the noble Lord should couch his total refusal to state his Party's policy by saying that he is resisting a temptation. What we are waiting to hear is what the other side would do, what cuts they would not have made; not their broad policy, but their detailed policy.
LORD ALDINGTON: We know this trick; some of us have done it before. I do not propose to detain your Lordships for too long, though if I am interrupted I shall be taxing your Lordships' patience. But I must refer the noble Lord to the many speeches made by Conservative leaders in the past three or four weeks. They have answered that question in some detail. I am coming later to adjure the Government not to do industry's job, but I am not going to fall into the trap of an industrialist standing here and doing the Government's job.
LORD SHACKLETON: I had the impression that the noble Lord was a politician, too.
LORD ALDINGTON: I want to add one further point upon Government expenditure. I must add to what I have said my belief that the Government will find it necessary further to prune their large estimates if they want to see taxes not going up again next year. For even if they are successful in keeping the totals for their expenditure for 1968, 1969 and 1970 to the figures of the January White Paper, it is not impossible that either exports may rise so sharply that resources will be under strain, or, as indicated in an article that I read in The Times to-day (I think it was by Professor Paish), balance

359
of payments considerations may make it desirable to divert more resources towards exports than have already been diverted. The Government will then be faced again next year, as they have been this year, with having to choose between a cut in Government expenditure or an increase in taxation. Some further pruning, therefore, of established programmes would, in my submission, be wise for the Government in order to give the necessary measure of flexibility.
To that I would add one more hope; namely, that the whole system of control of Government expenditure will be improved at once, so that the sharp deficiencies that we have seen recently between estimates and actual out-turn will not be repeated. In private industry we have a phrase, "cost consciousness", for the attitude that we seek to inspire throughout any good industrial firm. Has the Government machine lost its expenditure consciousness? Perhaps I can put the question another way: is it easy to instil in the Government machine real expenditure consciousness when Ministers, as well as Ministries, are seen to proliferate? Example flows from the top. Does the addition of 57,000 civil servants in three years or so help to get the right thinking?
But let us take a look at the number of Ministers in the main Economic Departments of State to-day. In 1956 when, so far as I recollect, we had a good growth in domestic output and a favourable balance of payments, there were three Treasury Ministers and three Board of Trade Ministers. Now there are four Treasury Ministers, three Department of Economic Affairs Ministers, plus the First Secretary of State who has moved into this field, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and goodness knows how many Board of Trade Ministers—I think it is five.
I must ask an important question: who does what among all these people? Do the recent changes mean anything or nothing in the economic sense? They clearly mean something in the political sense; I think we have all grasped that. Who is in charge of prices and incomes policy? Is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the First Secretary of State? I must say that I had never previously thought of these two Ministers as the
360
perfect economic team. What is there for the Department of Economic Affairs to do now? And, whatever it is, does it work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or for the Prime Minister? Mr. Douglas Jay, in the Financial Times of Thursday, April 4, wrote this:
"The best way to restore confidence in the Government's economic policy would be to abolish forthwith the present separate Department of Economic Affairs".
I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on the Front Bench, but I should like to know whether or not he agrees with his former chief. But, at any rate, I do, and here is one proposal for cutting Government expenditure. One has to ask those questions about top responsibility for the direction of economic policy, for one has every reason to fear that responsibility is not clear-cut, and where responsibility is not clear-cut thought as well as action will be muddled.
That brings me to the current Government philosophy of intervention in industry. There is nothing new about Governments' seeking to regulate in one way or another what goes on in industry, but there would be something very new in Ministers' seeking to intervene directly or indirectly in individual industrial decisions taken by individual industrial managements. I am not here inveighing against the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation which has developed in exactly the way I hoped it would when I gave it support at the time of the introduction of the Bill here. It has not become the weapon for interference in industry by Ministers that some feared; nor has it become a vehicle for backdoor nationalisation. Instead, there have been some useful proddings which have led to good reorganisations and amalgamations, sometimes helped with lending them money. I am referring here to something different: first, to the various fallacious theories about the value of Government intervention on a selective basis to increase industrial efficiency and help our way out of industrial stagnation. Whitehall knows best, it is thought. We shall no doubt be discussing those theories in due course on the Industrial Expansion Bill.
There is also the idea that it is very desirable for public money to be invested in something successful that will bring off a financial coup. Why, my Lords, should

361
this be a function of Government? It really is not as if Government do not already take a very big whack of all the profits earned by industry, something indeed over 60 per cent. at the present rate of taxation, corporation tax and income tax. It is, of course, very flattering of Ministers to want to behave like tycoons, but it is I think a mistake. Through the public sales investment decisions and their own purchasers the Government have a vast power affecting industry. In using this power they can support the efforts of businessmen, or bewilder them. They can promote efficiency through their purchasing methods or pander to wastefulness and antiquated design and outlook. Where, I may ask, is the leader of the cost effectiveness drive that we all know is needed in the Government to save millions of pounds of money for the Government and add efficiency to industry?
In earlier days we used to talk about a partnership between Government and industry, and wax a bit sentimental about it. In fact, there are often very different responsibilities facing the Government and industry, and sharply conflicting interests which need a realistic analysis. The mass of committees, advisory bodies and panels which have grown up over the years do not provide the solution for a Government who genuinely wish their policies to support industry. It is for Ministers themselves to inquire and then decide on policy. One detects to-day in Whitehall and Westminster a somewhat "governessy" approach to industrial problems, and sometimes, I must say, I detect them now in industrial committees themselves. This is all wrong, and wasteful of time and temper. And yet, to be fair, one finds in Westminster and Whitehall plenty of people with active and vigorous minds full of ideas for improving industrial performance. Why do they fail in their aim? Is it that they do not really understand the differing responsibilities of Government and industrial managements, or is the problem perhaps bedevilled by a distrust which the friends of noble Lords opposite, and some noble Lords opposite themselves, have of the capitalist system?
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not present. In our last debate on this subject he himself displayed an extraordinary distrust
362
and misunderstanding of this system in his reply. At column 414 he divested himself of this extraordinary sentence:
"What country would put up with an internal economic system under which no man could make a profit at the end of the year unless some other man made an equivalent loss?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/1/68.]
With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, that is the most awful nonsense. A profit in industry is the surplus made out of selling goods above their true cost. The more efficient you are, the bigger that surplus. And an inefficient firm will make no surplus at all. Even the Communists are reported to have found that the criterion of profit is the best criterion of efficiency in industry. In a competitive society such us ours seeks to be, market forces and profit provide a far better way of achieving efficiency than selective intervention by Ministers.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that subject, which is, I understand, the capitalist system in this country, could he tell us whether it works?
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, my answer is that it can work if it is allowed to, and that is why our ancestors were able to build up such very substantial wealth and reserves for us, which in our generation we seem to have been easing down.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the pursuit of efficiency, it is a good thing to sack 5,000 men?
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect, would wish to carry on a discussion about individual industrial projects here. I do not think in fact he will find that the fears of hardship which he has—I know he has a warm heart—and which I can well understand his having, are justified.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell me how he proposes to save £1,000 million a year, or even £500 million a year, by cuts in expenditure? I want the details; I do not want general observations. And is he in favour, in doing so, of reducing the great cost of defence forces, especially those overseas, the great cost of education and

363
the great cost of the Health Service? May we have details, please, because I am Scotch, and I do not know.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord is Scotch he will not wish me to waste other people's time. I shall be glad to see him outside and explain all these things to him.
This process of selective and direct intervention which has been going on in industry is now to be carried by Statute once again into the field of prices and incomes. Why is this recommended to us? We have heard this afternoon that it is to prevent an excessively rapid rise of money incomes, which it is argued will take place if there is no such statutory control. Before making comments on this policy, I want to commend to noble Lords a very striking article entitled "How the economy works", by Professor Paish, in the current number of Lloyds Banks Review. There are many good points in it. I will not weary the House with more than one. Professor Paish explains with admirable lucidity that the annual rate of increase in employment income is closely related to the proportion of the nation's productive potential in use. He goes on to give this advice:
"It would seem that this country must face the fact that to check inflation permanently and to prevent the emergence of yet another balance of payments crisis, it must accept permanent unemployment of some 500,000, or rather over 2 per cent."
Am I right in assuming, from what I read in the Chancellor's Budget Statement, that he accepts this proposition?
Professor Paish's theories do not lead to stagnation. As he shows, efficiency will improve faster, and thus output will grow more quickly, if we follow his advice and keep in reserve a fair margin of productive potential. That, I believe, is the background against which to look at the incomes policy and is, in the words used by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the "proper management of demand", and is, I understand, the same background that the Government have to their incomes policy.
The aim of any incomes policy ought to be to ensure that incomes do not rise faster than output and so increase costs. This can be achieved, we seem to be agreed, only if the Government properly
364
manage demand in the economy as a whole. In the absence of that proper management no direct controls over incomes or prices can be effective. In 1966 there was not, in Professor Paish's terms, a sufficient margin of productive potential, and in those circumstances not even a statutory incomes policy could, over a period, prevent earnings from rising too fast. Between April, 1966, and October, 1967, earnings rose by 5½ cent., whereas in the absence of statutory control during Mr. Selwyn Lloyd's pay freeze they rose 4 per cent. during the 18 months from April, 1961, to October. 1962. That is an important series of statistics at which to look, as we study the new policy.
My position on incomes policy rules and guidances has been the same for some years and I believe the position of my noble and right honourable and honourable friends is similar. If the economy is managed properly, I see no need for formal rules about incomes or prices or dividends in the private sector. There may, however, be a need for understood guidelines for the public sector where the Government take the decisions and price competition is absent. But it will always be right for Government and industry—both sides—to consult together on what total increases in incomes the nation can afford, and to do what they can to ensure that everyone understands why. Flexibility is essential in industry and in incomes. Equal treatment is wrong; differences will be right.
Against that background let us look at the new White Paper. First, there is not even a pretence that incomes should not rise faster than output. Everyone may get 34 per cent. increase, and some may get much more. Output will go up by only 3 per cent. Secondly, productivity is rightly given more encouragement, but apparently only after vetting by the Government or by the Prices and Incomes Board. Is this a good way of encouraging responsibility in employers and trade unions for faster growth in efficiency? It is typical of Left-Wing thought to erect a great paraphernalia of control for fear of a few people "getting away with it".
Thirdly, I am bound to say that I dislike the whole machinery of statutory control of incomes and prices. I must ask, as The Times leading article of

365
April 1 asked, will it work?—and all the other important questions that were mentioned. One fears that the system will not work as it was meant to work, and that even the new Minister, with her administrative competence, about which we know, and her manifest ability to get things done, will not be able to make it work properly. I am bound to say that I do not regard instructions by her to employers to pay higher wages to lower-paid workers as making an incomes policy work. This is what The Times says she is doing now.
Fourthly, to keep prices down while incomes rise is to defeat the main purpose of the Chancellor's Budget, and indeed to counter one of the logical consequences of devaluation—and it is a sop to sloppy thinking. Prices have never been kept down for long by control. Nor have incomes. Both remain steady if the economy is properly managed. The Government know all this very well.
I am now coming to the end of my speech. I am sure that the noble Lord, the Leader of the Liberal Party, who used to be a friend of mine, will forgive me if I have kept him too long. In these times economic debates are bound to be pretty sombre occasions. In many speeches made to-day there will be powerful criticism of the Government for the mistakes and failures of economic policy, felt all the more sharply because of the high but false hopes built up by the siren speeches and manifestoes of those earlier days. But none of us, I think—certainly not forget that much of British industry is technically and managerially up to the best in the world and competing successfully over the world. Rolls Royce have their counterparts, large and small, throughout British industry. Nor must we forget the steadily growing contribution made by the invisible earnings, particularly the banking, financial, insurance and other services, the credits for which have risen in the balance of payments by £150 million, or nearly 30 per cent., in the last five years.
In short, there is a strong base from which to develop further our invisible and visible earnings in the next two years. Much can be done despite the Government—despite any Government. Much more can be done if the Government do their job properly. But so much has
366
to be done—so much more than most people appreciate, despite the widespread publicity of a very high order given in popular newspapers and on television, as well as in the serious Press, to our problems. Massive debts have to be repaid—how massive we do not know. The figure of £2,000 million or more I as been mentioned, up to the end of December, and one gathers that there has been a great increase since. Yet that sum is perhaps not surprising against the total balance-of-payments deficit for the last five years of £1,830 million.
There are some who doubt whether we can succeed in the gigantic task we have set ourselves. I am not one of those. We can succeed. But I say that failure would be disastrous, not just to the people of Britain but to the whole orderly life of the Western World, which perhaps has just had a glimpse of what a complete distrust of money might mean. Both Britain and the United States of America together were recently able, with their friends, to restore international order in the field of money. Our influence for good depends on our ability to run our own affairs—as does the confidence which we can command overseas. Thee can be no confidence from overseas unless there is confidence at home. It is for noble Lords opposite and for the Government to give the lead in recreating that confidence. Can they do this?
4.28 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, thought I was in any way trying to hasten the end of his speech. I can assure him I was not. In fact, I still consider the noble Lord a friend, and I like listening to his speeches. I find them very soothing. Indeed, I fins this unchanging attitude of the Conservatives over the years to a world which is moving forward very fast, extremely soothing—provided they are in Opposition. But the Government invite the House to take note of the economic situation. I must say that in my view the House could hardly miss doing so. Over the last three-and-a-half years we have, after all, lived with economic crisis after economic crisis and with so many periods of "Stop-Go" that it is difficult to know whether one is coming or going. Despite the able and lucid statement—and indeed the enthusiastic statement—of the noble

367
Lord, Lord Shackleton, the economic situation to-day must surely be regarded largely as the result of miscalculation and mismanagement by this Government since they took office. I know they inherited a tremendous balance-of-payments deficit, but that was three and a half years ago and our present situation must surely be regarded as of their own making.
However, it is not my intention to job back. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put the case for the Government very well: that we have this large balance-of-payments deficit which must be turned into a surplus. He wisely stressed that it must be a surplus over a period of years if we are to keep out of debt and to keep the pound strong, and that having devalued we are to get the maximum advantage by increasing investment and reducing home consumer demand, thus releasing resources for export. A major feature of this policy is to keep incomes down, to reduce the pressure of consumer demand, and, as he rightly stressed, to keep costs down. This is part and parcel of the incomes policy. I believe there are two further features to which perhaps insufficient attention has been given. One is encouragement of savings and the other the perennial problem of better use of manpower.
I should like to comment on only a few aspects of the present situation. The balance-of-payments deficit can be eliminated by greater export promotion and by import saving. The former seems to be picking up quite well, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he comes to reply, could tell us what the increase has been since devaluation. If he cannot give us the increase, can he tell us what the trend looks like and to what extent we appear to be succeeding? On import saving my impression is that there is no coherent plan for this, and yet I believe there is remarkable scope for introducing import saving on a well planned basis. My experience has been that where proposals have been made for import saving a considerable time elapses before a decision is taken. I am not going to labour this matter, but I think it is a point to which my noble friend Lord Gladwyn and others may well turn in the debate we are to have on the structure of Government on April 24.
368
I should like to ask what is being done positively to encourage import saving.
The next point is the reduction of home demand to reduce the pressure on potential export resources. I am not going into the details of the Budget, but I will say quite frankly that I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely courageous in using indirect taxation as the main weapon in cutting demand. It was a brave decision, it was a right decision, and I believe that it should have a good effect; and I hope that this is an indication of a new philosophy by the Treasury and that we may see a shift of emphasis, as we have been suggesting for several years, in favour of a more simple tax system and one which reduces the direct taxes disincentives in favour of the less disincentive indirect ones. I was amazed at the tremendous defence which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put up in favour of S.E.T. Towards the end of his remarks I wondered why Mr. Reddaway had been entrusted with this inquiry if everything was so satisfactory. No doubt we shall find out about it.
As to the alternative, I should like, at the expense of being guilty of repetition, to put in another plea for a fresh study of the added value tax system as a means of providing revenue with the least harm to the country. I am sure we are missing something here. I believe it could be a genuine alternative to S.E.T. and may be the foundation on which a simpler tax system could be created. At the same time, the country should recognise, as the noble Lord pointed out—and I think we must give constant emphasis to this—that as we shift towards indirect taxation we must keep under constant scrutiny the plight of the lower income groups, and particularly people on low fixed incomes.
It is in the field of the use of manpower, productivity and incomes policy, that we ought to be looking now for stable, longterm growth. Here I take a better view of the Government's intentions than of their past policies. At last, after a great deal of persuasion, they are, in my view, beginning to get the emphasis right. They have come a long way since those dreary days of 1966 when the exponents of Government policy did not seem to understand the importance of productivity. It is instructive to look back at the history of this subject. In the Declaration of Intent negotiated by Mr. George Brown

369
before he was removed from the D.E.A. the references in all the documents, and certainly that document, were to incomes, prices and productivity—productivity at the end. After the chaos of July 20 the Government introduced their Bill to implement the prices and incomes policy, and again I pointed out that the emphasis was entirely wrong, because we were invited to deal with prices and incomes policy, not productivity. Productivity was tucked away in the form of an essay in one of the Schedules to the Bill. Many of us protested at the policy of freezing both wages and productivity agreements at that time. We said it was very short-sighted indeed. I got a pretty tart rebuke from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was at that time Leader of the House. He had a Government brief. I am looking forward to hearing the expression of a free citizen in the debate this afternoon. We protested on the question of emphasis.
Now, if I read the signs aright, the emphasis is becoming more realistic. The new White Paper restores productivity to the place we claimed for it. It is now known as the Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy. In fact I put forward in the economic debate on February 9, 1966, a similar suggestion to get the emphasis right. It was still trying just to get emphasis right; it was not the policy but the emphasis. First, we suggested that the Prices and Incomes Board might be rechristened the Productivity Improvement and Related Incomes and Prices Board. I said productivity must be put first so that people may realise that they are not having just a wages freeze but are going to be able to justify higher wages by higher efficiency.
In the subsequent debate on August 3, 1966, on the Prices and Incomes Policy I returned to this subject, and in answer to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I pointed out that rather than come to the House for a wage freeze or standstill they should have demanded the maximum number of agreements which gave higher productivity and higher efficiency. Unfortunately, as we discovered in that debate, the Government intended to apply the standstill to productivity agreements. We are, in my view, still suffering from having lost that six months in which genuine productivity
370
agreements could have been negotiated. Now there has been a welcome reverse of this thinking, and I believe that with the appointment of Mrs. Castle. in her new responsibility for employment and productivity we may well see a welcome change.
The acceptance of this idea by the Government tempts me to put forward again a number of other ideas, because I have found that with this Government you have to repeat things many times before you get them accepted or taken up. We still have the problem of how to keep inflation down in a high-wage economy and how to get the best use of manpower. I put forward in 1966 an idea, which has since been taken up by one or two writers in the economic press, for a freeze not on wages and incomes but on the total pay-roll itself, which would mean that if this principle were applied to companies and organisations it would encourage them to adjust their wage and salary scales as they wished, provided the total outlet in cash did not exceed what it had been in the previous period. I believe that if companies wanted to put wages up in those circumstances they would have to reduce manpower and introduce more efficient methods and productivity in it.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to elucidate that thought in regard to the future of export industries in the near future?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, because I was trying to condense what I said in that debate. I said that of course there would have to be exemptions for companies which had to expand and those which had to expand particularly for export purposes. I throw this out as an idea which I believe is worth further study and certainly could be applied to the nationalised industries. I think it quite wrong to have increased the Civil Service. I believe that if we had had this system working in 1964 we should not have had anything like an additional 57,000 civil servants; it would have beers inconceivable, because every time one would have had to say, "How do I save the money in order to get the increase I want". I merely throw this out as a suggestion for discussion. I believe there is something in it which would avoid inflation and avoid overmanning.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has equated the number of increased civil servants with the increased population?
LORD BYERS: Yes, I think there will be an adjustment, but I cannot believe it is right that 57,000 additional people should be brought in, and I am sure that if there had been a discipline operating it might have been 25,000 or 26,000—something of that sort. I am merely pleading for some method of controlling it, and believe that that is what we ought to do.
The only other point on this matter is one that we have made on numerous occasions in the past, and I make it again because I think we may have a better opportunity under Mrs. Castle than we have had in the past. I refer to the emphasis which has been put in the past on nationally negotiated wage agreements, only for them to be followed by further agreements at local and plant level which have caused a serious incomes and wages drift in this country. I believe that during the period when wage restraint is required and when the emphasis ought to be on productivity, the Government should consider trying to put a brake on national agreements, and encourage plant bargaining on the basis of genuine productivity agreements at that level, because it is at the plant level that one can measure productivity and efficiency. But if we are to have national agreements and local agreements and plant agreements we shall never get anywhere near the 31½per cent. target which has been set by the Government. I think that these national agreements are a positive danger in that they create the wage drift which we want to avoid.
I conclude, therefore, by saying that, thank goodness! at last some light seems to be dawning; and the emphasis for which we have been working and asking for so long is now being shifted in the right direction. At least, I hope that this is what is happening. If the new Minister can be really tough with applications for national and central increases in wages and incomes, and can encourage schemes of high wages for high efficiency at the plant level of industry, I shall have a better chance of persuading my colleagues to support the provision of statutory powers which may be required as a last resort. But we certainly cannot accept that policy
372
unless it is part and parcel of one which emphasises productivity, high wages, high efficiency and some form of restraint at national level.
What I find quite indefensible—I am sorry to have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington—is the apparent policy of the unofficial opposition in the Labour Party in its alliance with the official Opposition of the Conservative Party, who apparently prefer to avoid the challenge of framing a positive incomes policy and remain wedded to the old-fashioned system which has done so much to create the inflation that has undermined our prospects of achieving national growth. I find this an unholy alliance of Tories and troglodytes, and I think it rather pathetic. But what we must ensure is that we get the right incomes policy for the circumstances of to-day.
4.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT CHANDOS: My Lords, I fear that I have a number of rather disagreeable things to say, and although the genial atmosphere of your Lordships' House is a bad place to say them, they must be said. However, I can begin with something agreeable, and that is that I think the noble Lord the Leader of the House made a most charming speech. I had early determined that when I not into trouble of any kind and had a bad case I would try to enlist his sympathy to make a speech on my behalf. He even made S.E.T. almost a good joke, instead of a bad one. And that passage about the relief which the Highland hotels were going to get really brought tears to my eyes, as half a Scotsman, because you can imagine the little waiting room up there with this tremendous fiscal relief which they were going to get.
I have also been trying to find something agreeable to say about the Government. I do not find that difficult. I have no hesitation in saying that their outstanding virtue is their courage. I spent a good deal of my short span in war, and I learnt early in life on the battlefield that the most dangerous people to follow, and indeed the still more dangerous people to lead, are the people who are merely brave: who do not know where to go or when to go. And I am afraid that that is the posture of the present Government. The noble Lord the Leader of the House put forward the

373
time-honoured question, "What would the Opposition do if they were in our place?". We all know that one. It is one of the oldest Parliamentary dodges. All it means is, "When we have got the economy into the most disastrous mess, how would you get us out of it?". Quite likely, we should have to get out of it the same way. But the answer is, of course, that we would never have got into it. The Government inherited a difficulty, and they have succeeded, in three and a half years, in turning it into a crisis—in fact, not a crisis, but a disaster.
I want to refer to a cliché which is now current, about personality assassination. I am entirely against personality assassination. It is against my nature. My advice to any Conservative who becomes most indignant and who is thinking about indulging in it is, "Don't touch it. Leave it to them. They will do it for you." On the subject of personalities, may I be allowed to express a deep and sincere regret that Mr. Ray Gunter has left the Ministry of Labour. My belief is that he has been an excellent Minister, and I think that his departure from the Ministry is a loss to the country, to industry and to labour.
This leads me to speak for a moment about the new cast which was announced last week. I am at this moment much connected with the theatre. I could not help being reminded that here was a touring company that had "got the bird" in the Midlands, where they used to get a few cheers, and were now coming to London. They were going to put on the same old cast, the same old stage army, all out of step with one another; tad they were going to play Julius Caesar, which they were to re-cast. I do not know quite who the Mark II Anthony is going to be, but I rather suspect that it will be either Mr. Jenkins or Mr. Crossman—probably Mr. Crossman; and before long he will make the speech
"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him".
We shall see.
There are some unregenerated people who think that the Prime Minister's speeches at the General Election were no more than cynical vote-catching by a skilful politician. I absolutely reject such an idea. I am sure it was not so. It would not be the least serious if it were.
374
But what is serious is that I believe he thought they were true. He believed them. This is the awful thing.
According to Mr. Wilson, as he then was, the present Government were to be elected on a programme of expansion—dynamic expansion, glamourously and eloquently put over. The Prime Minister said—and I believe he spoke from his heart: "We all remember the bitter experience of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and the deliberate slamming on of the brakes." I think he meant it. The Government now say, quite courageously, "We will not only slam on the brakes, but deflate the tyres, increase the price of petrol and bop the driver one on his noggin." This is indeed an odd way of carrying out this dynamic expansion. I think that his reminiscences are going to be still more bitter.
My Lords, what has gone wrong? I will not speak about the rates for money: that would be too painful a subject. I remember also Mr. Douglas Houghton, an old Parliamentary colleague of mine in another place, a most respected Member. Indeed, he was brought up in the Inland Revenue and, if my memory serves me, was at one time Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—not the sort of man who would indulge in flights of fancy or eloquence. What did he say in his Election Address in 1964?
"Labour will not be a spendthrift Government. It will not need to increase the general level of taxation to pay for its programme".
Knowing the man I am quite sure that he believed what he said. I tremble to think what the taxpayer would get if in a return to the Inland Revenue he got his income wrong on that sort of scale. Taxes actually went up sharply after the Election, and in the three and a half years since the present Government carne into power the burden of taxation has gone up by £2,000 million. If I were in a disagreeable mood I should say that in a period of four years the burden of taxation amounts to about the same figure as the Conservative Government succeeded in reducing it in thirteen years.
Many Ministers have lectured industry, and wagged a finger of reproach at certain inefficiencies. I think they should look at the beam in their own eye before they start teaching other people. They might, for instance, modernise their estimates. What has gone wrong? It is

375
that Government spending goes up steadily when we are all told, candidly and courageously, by the agreeable Mr. Shore, for example, that spending in the private sector—which is a gentle expression for you and me—must be curtailed, and that our standard of life must be cut down.
What has gone wrong? Why is it that the bond of this country has been dishonoured by devaluation? We all know that devaluation, which is now represented as an enlightened act of policy, was in fact imposed upon us by the country's creditors lest the national cheque should "bounce". That is what has happened. What has gone wrong? Why is it that since this Government came in the Civil Service has bounded up by no fewer than 54,000 people, at a cost of about £75 million a year? The noble Lord asked for one item of detail. Here is one for £75 million. I suppose that he regards £75 million as peanuts. If one cuts that sort of thing, the general feeling of economy of that kind, then it will seep down through the organisation.
What has gone wrong? I will try to answer the question. Why is it that men who, by their eloquence and ability—I see many on the Benches opposite—have reached the highest positions in the State now see their policy in ruins? Have they been let down by private industry? There was a time when our exports paid for about 85 per cent. of our imports. That has now gone up; productivity has made its contribution, and it is now about 90 per cent. Why is it, then, that these able and patriotic men now see their policy in ruins? This is not meant to be a destructive question, because if we could find the answer to it we should begin to know what to do.
The general answer is plain. It is because we have seen a mixture of Socialism and irresponsibility—and sometimes, even worse, it is mixed with malice. The profound reason for most of our discontents is that the Socialist dilemma in a free society has never been faced. I think that Mr. Attlee (as he then was) put his finger on the spot in a book published in 1949, when he said:
"The plain fact is that a Socialist Party cannot hope to make a success of administering the capitalist system, because it does not believe in it."
376
That was said by the most respected Labour leader in the country. Long ago I used to attack Sir Stafford Cripps in another place for what he was pleased to call the national plan, backed by the Socialist doctrine of the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution and exchange. The inherent fallacy is that you cannot work a centrally-planned economy, in the sense that the word is used by Socialists, and at the same time give labour the right to sell its labour and its services where it wishes. Of course there is nothing in the pragmatic life of anyone that can be carried out without having a plan of some kind. You cannot build a bungalow, or buy a bed or a motor car without having a plan of some kind. But it is axiomatic that the principal instrument of production is labour.
How can you control production, distribution and exchange and not control labour? Sir Stafford Cripps used to evade the question—he was a nice man and a great friend of mine—by saying, "We are trying to do something which has never been done before". He might just as well have said, "We are trying to do something which is manifestly impossible." You cannot do it. You can collect the bricks and mortar and buy a site under a compulsory purchase order, and all the rest of it, but you will not have a house until you have the labour to build it. Unless you control labour, the national plan is the national sham. One cannot do this in a free society, and this is the dilemma which has never been faced. If you are prepared to become a Communist and get rid of all your liberties the thing will work, because if you are short of labour in the mines you order the medical students to go in and get the coal. But you cannot have this kind of attitude in a free society. It is not working in Russia because at this moment the Russians are busy restoring some of the discipline of the market place instead of the discipline of the State and the commissar.
We are trying to do the opposite and now, at long last, these things are coming home to roost. At long last, the present Government have to face the dilemma. Instead of talking about direction of labour they pose the question in a slightly different way: they pose it in terms of a prices and incomes policy. In a free society labour must have the right to sell its labour where it wishes and for what

377
it can get, not for what somebody in Whitehall thinks that it should get. If one looks at this dilemma, one will find it is at the root of the sort of objections which are raised by members of the Party opposite, particularly by Mr. Cousins. So if the policy works at all, it can only be at the expense of freedom and it can work for only a very short time.
Let me turn to another aspect of our problems. One of the means of expansion without inflation lies in savings. I thought that the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, was a little sketchy on this point. I think that what he said was very dangerous. It is dangerous under the present dispensation, because every disincentive is put upon savings. Savings take purchasing power out of our pockets. But how does this irreproachable sentiment harmonise with Government policy? Why is investment income over a certain figure singled out for penal taxation? If you believe in savings, why put special and peculiar taxes upon the proceeds of saving? Of course, among 50 million people there will be those who live upon their father's savings in an unworthy manner, people who might even be detected on a racecourse or in a night club. Is that any reason why the whole policy of savings should he damnified in this way? Why whip hundreds with scorpions in order to try to prevent one sinner from getting away with it? Why should the Government praise almost ad nauseam small savings and at the same time say that big savings are utterly disreputable? What kind of logic is this? It is not logical at all, but a piece of political malice.
One has the example of the very rich man—I hope he is thoroughly ashamed of being rich !—who had a small business which he built up into a great undertaking. He has now retired and still has about half the stock. It is a very big business and is a large employer. He is now being paid £20,000 dividends for the year, so he went to the company and said, "Don't pay me this. Please let me leave it with you". I do not know whether or not they consented, but if they had consented it would have saved the man £12,500 in taxation. It is a strange situation that by not receiving £20,000 one should get £12,500 bonus. These are the economics of bedlam under a
378
Socialist Government. They would be funny if they were not so damning. This man will be obliged to accept his dividend by some provision in the Finance Bill—I think I see the Front Bench opposite thinking up a clause now—and a few dozen extra civil servants will be recruited to see that everybody takes what they do not want so that they do not have to pay the 28s. 6d. in the pound. Of course, I am not in this situation, but it is absolutely crazy. There will be rich men of whom noble Lords in all parts of the House will not approve because they pay only 19s. 3d. in the pound. Is that any reason for making ourselves look ridiculous?
Again, I have often pointed out that all the upper levels of surtax are not for revenue; they are for punishment: "I'll teach you to be a success", is what they say. Let me prove it. In 1967–58 the actual sum raised by taxation was £10,819 million, and it will be about £12,000 million in the next year. If we allowed surtax payers to keep a quarter of their earnings—that is to say 5s. in the pound—I am informed that in the case of mixed income it would cost the country about £4 million a year. My own calculations make it considerably higher. But can anyone claim that this £4 million, £10 million or £12 million when related to a taxation of £10,819 million is for revenue? Of course, it is not—it is simply for punishment. It is a piece of political malice.
Let me turn to the capital gains tax, and let me confess that I believe in profits; so, according to their statement, do the Government. Let me even concede, for the sake of argument, that capital gains should be taxed, notwithstanding that it is yet another blow at savings. But why should short-term profits be treated as if they were income? What logical justification can there be for taxing profits earned in, say, 11 months at the full rate—in some cases 19s. in the pound—and those earned in 12 months at 30 per cent., or 6s. in the pound? What kind of logic is there in that?
The making of some short-term profits is highly desirable in the interests of the country. There were times when issues of securities were underwritten by private individuals, and they thereby guaranteed the flow of savings into enterprise

379
and into industry. But any individual who underwrites an issue now should see a doctor. It is absolute madness. I cannot see why there should be this distinction between short-term and long-term profits. I also believe—and I should like to have a statement from the Government—that the actual revenue from capital gains would be higher if it were levied on all capital gains at 30 per cent., whether the gains were earned in a week, a month or a year. The number of transactions would greatly increase.
At the present moment the capital gains tax distorts and impairs the capital market. Also, the tax is so complicated that it requires a host of civil servants to disentangle the detail. I have had to wind up two large estates, and six months or nine months pass before one can get an answer to a question. I do not want to reiterate what I have said so often to your Lordships, but the artificial stimulus to savings is one of the keys that will get us out of our present difficulties. By this means we can go some way towards having expansion without inflation.
I now turn for one moment to the international actions of the Government, though not those to which my noble friend was referring. Why, when we manifestly cannot manage our own affairs, is it sensible to tell other people how to manage theirs? What kind of sense is it to have a policy which allows you to trade only with countries of whose political opinions you approve? If we do not approve of South Africa, and curtail our trade with her, why do we trade with Franco and with Salazar? And why do we trade with the France of de Gaulle, if we disapprove of him? I suppose the principle of self-determination must be that countries determine for themselves the type of Government which they think appropriate to their position, provided in our case, it seems, that those other countries settle their political system in accordance with ours. We really cannot be the schoolma'ams or Mrs. Grundys of the whole world. That is absolute insanity.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that the burden of our criticism of the Government's economic policy, and indeed of the Budget, is that it is almost entirely negative. Can anyone be surprised that the economy is sluggish when
380
manacles are put on the wrists, and balls and chains on the ankles, of anyone likely to make a profit? The Government have no money of their own; they get it from the profit earner. The future prosperity of the country depends upon the profit earner. The prospects of attaining equilibrium in our balance of payments depend upon the profit earner. The finance of the under-developed countries depends upon the profit earners in the fully-developed countries. Why regard profit earners as the enemies of the State?
The root causes of our discontents begin with muddled thinking and attempts to graft a number of Socialist doctrines—which are workable in a totalitarian State—on to a country which is still wedded to liberty and, for that matter, is still wedded to the idea of private enterprise. Until you allow our citizens a little more elbow room; until you are able to reduce Government expenditure absolutely and not comparatively, and until you can cut down the ever-mounting number of civil servants whose main function is to prevent things happening or to prevent people doing things, the longer will the economy drag its feet, and the longer will the natural genius of our people and the unique skill of our workmen be cribbed and confined. Finally, in a democracy Governments are supposed to govern with the consent of the governed, and receive a mandate from them to do so. Now that the electorate have unequivocally withdrawn their consent, is not the only democratic principle to give them a chance of choosing another Government? The present Government had a mandate to govern. They now have a mandate to go.
5.5 p.m.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, there has been a great deal of comment from noble Lords on individual proposals in this year's Budget, and I think I am right in saying that it has been generally considered to be a courageous one. What the Budget aims at is nothing less than a realignment of our economy to put us on the road to economic recovery. But I want to speak about an important aspect of that recovery—the contribution of agricultural and allied industries.
Because agriculture is the largest industry in this country, with a production currently valued at £1,850 million a year

381
and a potential growth rate of 6 per cent., it is vital to take account of its contribution to the national economy. The 1968 Annual Review determinations have given the British farming industry £,52½ million, which some people say is not enough. Certainly, it required farmers to absorb a quarter of their rising costs, but we—and I am a farmer myself—still have about half of what we have gained from increasing productivity to provide the resources for further investment. And this investment must not necessarily be only inward-looking. We see slogans of "Buy British", but there is a better slogan "Sell British". The British agricultural industry can contribute as much to our export drive as to our import saving, and we must not lose sight of this valuable potential.
I want to quote an extract from the Barclay's Bank Report under the heading, "United Kingdom Farming and the Balance of Payments", which says:
"After devaluation, and the subsequent Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund containing an estimate of a balance of payments surplus in the second half of this year, exhortations on the one hand to export, and on the other to buy British, have become even more persistent, and farming has been quoted as prominent among the industries which could make a major contribution. Overseas sales of farm produce in 1967 amounted to some £125 million compared with £90 million in 1960. Farming also supplies the essential impetus for the agricultural machinery industry, where Britain is the world's leading exporter, selling over two-thirds of its output, and for agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, weed-killers and fertilisers."
I am sorry to go on about this, but this extract is very interesting. It continues:
"Long-term planning would mean a deliberate production of surpluses for export, in turn involving a radical change in policy. Nevertheless, some moves towards encouraging exporting have been made, including the formation of the British Agricultural Export Council early last year."
Besides performing very efficiently all the usual functions of an export council, such as specialist missions and fairs, the British Agricultural Export Council sells British agricultural expertise to foreign Governments. It is, of course, Governments who, in the agricultural fields all over the world, hold the key to agricultural investment. The B.A.E.C., under the stimulating chairmanship of Mr. Rudi Sternberg and the deputy chairmanship of Mr. C. M. Jarvis, has
382
made great strides in the first year of its existence. I know it is stimulating leadership, because I sit on the B.A.E.C. main committee and myself have been considerably stimulated. Already this year the Council have sent outward missions to Portugal, Greece, the Lebanon, Iran, the Soviet Union and Pakistan. Each of these Governments has been persuaded, at the highest level, that they can benefit from British agricultural expertise in drawing up their investment plans. The B.A.E.C. will be the channel through which that expertise and the accompanying export of hardware will flow.
Now this presents us with a golden opportunity to move in on this worldwide drive for greater food production, whether in farm machinery, chemicals, buildings, irrigation, livestock, seed or even research and training. There is a huge and growing demand which we on the Council are highly qualified to meet, and as a trading nation we muse have our full share. But we are not without competition. Countries like France, Holland and Denmark also recognse the opportunities in nations with new oil wealth or who are in receipt of World Bank or other aid. With the progress of science and mechanisation, the old split between agriculture and industry has virtually disappeared, with large sections of industry supplying the huge inputs into food production as well as processing, preserving or manufacturing its end products. The fortunes of many great national companies are inextricably bound up with the processes of farming and horticulture.
The Council is also the instrument by which the industry can express itself with one voice in the export field, as in the case of the Rumanian irrigation project, sponsored by the B.A.E.C., where a number of major firms with diverse interests are working together under B.A.E.C. leadership. Joint marketing arrangements in Europe and further afield are becoming commonplace in order to cut down costs arid reduce overheads. The B.A.E.C. is used in such a porting an expensive performance can be assisted, not only in finding markets way. Many small firms who find ex-but in exploiting them. I have an extract

383
here from a letter from an engineering firm sent to the B.A.E.C., which says:
"May I take this opportunity of thanking you and your Council for the progressive and forthright manner in which you are conducting your business. We, as agricultural engineers, feel that there has been a long-felt want for the type of guidance which your Council is offering to the smaller type of firm who wishes to know the kind of agriculture being conducted in various countries of the world, and where markets can be developed when this information is presented to them."
Finally, I have some figures of the amount of Government assistance given to similar bodies in the following countries. France is reputed to have a budget of £4½ million. The United States finance for export promotion is 0·2 of 1 per cent. of the total agricultural exports—and, my Lords, that can be a lot of money. Australia donates 0·8 per cent. of their total agricultural exports; New Zealand, 1·1 per cent. The United Kingdom spends £1 million per annum, through the Board of Trade, on export promotion, but only a fraction of this goes to agriculture—and none, if I may say so, as yet to the B.A.E.C. Here I come to my plea. The Council do not ask for a continuous subsidy, but some small, temporary financial aid. I realise that this presents a problem in the difficult economic climate of to-day, but even in such straitened circumstances one must not forgo the opportunities to make a really profitable investment. The foreign exchange earnings that the B.A.E.C. has shown it can bring to the country justify the provision of some pump-priming finance. Everyone accepts that in the long term the industry must pay for its own export council. All that we on the B.A.E.C. ask for is the opportunity to demonstrate to industry that we can provide a worthwhile and profitable service to them.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow her in the arguments she has just brought forward. I should very much like to do so, because I found myself very largely in agreement with what she said about British agriculture. I think the record of achieved increasing efficiency of British agriculture over the past twenty years or so is a magnificent one—a record to which very few other industries, if any,
384
can hold a candle. I think that that increasing efficiency fully justifies a substantial increase in the total volume of home food production which can now with advantage be produced in this country, as I think to the benefit of our balance of payments.
Out of general consideration for the welfare of your Lordships I propose to restrict myself to one point. It may sound a rather humdrum point, but I think it is an important one. In passing, I should like to refer to what my noble friend Lord Chandos said about courage. One detects a tendency for Ministers now to pay terrific tributes to their colleagues' courage. It reminds me sometimes of the soldier who wished to pay a tribute to another soldier, and who said, "He was the bravest man I ever knew—throughout the battle he never left my side". I should also like myself to pay a tremendous tribute to the excellent speech, I thought, of my noble friend Lord Aldington earlier in this debate. The point I am going to speak about for a few minutes is one which he touched on. In passing, I should like to say a word about the interesting suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers—that instead of restricting individual remuneration, the aggregate remuneration of a company, as I understood him to mean, might be restricted. It seems to me that, whether that would be good or bad, it would be inconceivably difficult to administer.
My Lords, there is a precept that in our present national situation money incomes cannot rise faster than productivity without the danger of inflation and balance of payments trouble; and that precept is widely accepted as a principle however imperfectly our national performance may have been in its relation to it. But another principle which is not yet as fully accepted—and though, as I said at the beginning, it may sound humdrum, I believe it may be almost as important—is this: that if output rises faster than potential capacity, the results are rising costs, falling exports, increased imports and balance of payments problems. If actual output rises faster than potential capacity, it can do so only at the expense of the margin of unused capacity. I believe there is much accumulating evidence to indicate that when that margin of unused capacity has fallen, owing to excessive demand, below

385
about 5 or 6 per cent., then we have experienced the troubles I have mentioned, and that when actual output has been maintained at not more than about 94 or 95 per cent. of potential production, then our economy is operating on a relatively level keel.
I hasten to say that this sort of margin of 5 or 6 per cent. does not of course mean that, in terms of unemployment, the percentage would be anything like that. It seems to indicate a national average of unemployment somewhere of the order of 2 per cent., as Lord Aldington mentioned. This rule, if it is a rule, has been lucidly described by Professor Frank Paish, the economist who, I should like to repeat—I have mentioned it before to your Lordships—in my belief has proved far more accurate in his diagnoses and forecasts than any other. This concept may not at first sight seem particularly palatable to politicians anxious to get going on a more spectacular rate of expansion. But it may, in fact, indicate the route to the highest attainable and sustainable rate of expansion. If so, I suggest that it is a guiding principle of the highest importance and relevance.
I suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, suggested, that noble Lords look at the article by Professor Paish in the current issue of Lloyds Bank Review. In that article, Professor Paish contests what he calls three widespread misconceptions. The first is that the long-term growth of our economy would have been faster had it not been for recurrent balance-of-payments crises. The second misconception, he alleges, is that even in extreme full-employment conditions it is possible to prevent excessive rises in money incomes by direct restrictions of increases in wage and salary rates either by law or, he claims, by voluntary co-operation. The third alleged misconception is that the best way of accelerating our growth and output is to run the economy with extreme full employment of our productive resources.
As to the first of these allegations, it is, I think, a commonly-held notion that but for our balance-of-payments difficulties we could have achieved a much more rapid rise in output and could have maintained it. It is true, of course, that the balance of payments is one of the limiting factors. But Professor Paish believes that it is not the primary one; that balance-of-payments difficulties are
386
more the consequence and that the rate of increase in potential capacity is, in fact, the primary limiting factor. If output presses on the ceiling of capacity, then disaster follows. Looking back, it seems as if this is what has happcned on each occasion.
One difficulty is that it is not always easy to be sure when output is rising faster than capacity. Here I speak with some humility, because in 1958, I think, When I was at the Treasury, output appeared to be lagging and stagnant at the moment. Visible statistics took a long time to materialise, and in fact during the time when it appeared to be stagnant, output was beginning to rise and to rise faster than potential capacity. If I had realised this factor and tie importance of it then, the results achieved later on would have been even more beneficial than they were—if, indeed, it is possible to imagine such a thing.
One thing should be said in regard to the 2 per cent. national average unemployment postulated. No one in his senses wants any single person unavoidably unemployed. Fortunately, Professor Paish computes that the fluctuations in unemployment work out at little more than one-fifth of the changes in the margin of production. The more employment can be evened out between areas of high and low employment, the lower the average national figure can with safety become. Since an adequate margin of spare capacity means that workers can be absorbed more quickly in the sectors where demand is increasing, the average period of unemployment is likely to be shorter and more transitional. If the validity of that general argument is accepted, a very relevant consideration is: How can potential capacity be encouraged to grow faster? Encouragement of a high rate of industrial investment is clearly an important factor here. It requires for its realisation a reasonable expectation of future profits. Probably an even more important factor—and here I think the noble Lord who is to reply may agree—is the more efficient use of existing resources.
The two conclusions that seem emerge from this thesis are, first, that a rapid rise in output at the expense of a reduction in spare capacity can defeat its own object; it can inflict permanent competitive damage on our economy and has, in fact, done so. The second one is

387
that preservation of a margin of potential capacity of the order of 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. (which is probably about what it is at present) may be the effective way towards overcoming the "Stop-Go" troubles that we have experienced for so long and towards attaining and sustaining an era of steadier and faster expansion with a sound balance of payments. It is important to be clear in regard to this thesis that it does not imply stagnation; and my noble friend Lord Aiding-ton mentioned that point.
I suppose that the best way of increasing productive potential is by increasing and improving manpower productivity. At present, I think our productivity is increasing at the rate of about 3 per cent. per annum. If it is true that an increase in money incomes beyond this is a danger, then Professor Paish's conclusion, that an increase in money incomes works out in inverse ratio to the margin of unused capacity, may be extremely relevant. Looking at the recent past, his calculation is that when the margin of potential was 2 per cent. only, the rise in employment incomes was 8 per cent.; when the margin of potential was 6 per cent., the rise in employment incomes was 3 per cent. Looking again at the recent past, between the years 1955 and 1967—and I am afraid that I am giving your Lordships a lot of statistics—the index of labour costs per unit of production rose over 50 per cent.—a measure of our lack of success nationally; or, in the fashionable term, of our non-achievement. But the result of this rise in cost was an increase in export prices of British manufacturers that was too little to render them profitable but too much to ensure them being competitive. I think that illustrates the danger that these unearned money incomes can cause.
I will not go into Professor Paish's arguments in further detail because I want to be very brief; but if his conclusions are right, these principles may provide the light at the end of the tunnel for which all of us have been so eagerly straining our eyes. The only point I wish to make on this occasion is this. I hope the Minister, when he comes to reply, will say that he will urge his right honourable colleagues to read Professor Paish's thesis and to give it careful and dispassionate consideration.
5.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, will always be listened to with the closest attention on finance, whether he is quoting his Professor Paish or giving us (which would be just as welcome) his own unaided reflections. I feel emboldened by his benign personality to offer a few thoughts to-day; although I remember the advice given by the late Lord Attlee a good many years ago to Professor Laski—a friend of many of us, and particularly of Lord Robbins and myself—who ventured to give Lord Attlee, when he was Prime Minister, some sharp advice. Lord Attlee replied, "A period of silence on your part will be welcomed!" I shall try to follow that advice. I have not, in fact, troubled the House for three months but I felt that to-day it was only right to intervene for a few moments.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his helpful speech—though I am no longer in a position to be allowed to distribute that kind of compliment—was kind enough to refer to me as being in these days a free citizen. That is true. No one is paying me to come here—I get the usual expenses I presume: one cannot lose everything at once—but I am perfectly free to come or to stay away; and I am coming and speaking only because I feel strongly that the Government's Budget should be supported.
I am not going to fall in the trap, though it is a rather tempting one, of trying to reply to the previous speeches. I leave that, happily, to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who I know will deal very effectively with these elder statesmen among whose company and to whose club I hope to be elected—if you can be an elder statesman without ever having been a statesman. At any rate, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will deal rather sharply with some of the rather partisan points which have been made. But, as I have said, I leave them, happily, to him. There is one aspect on that to which I would call the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I had hoped to find him on some Back Bench, but as I go down he goes up. I am bound to say that I thought his speeches used to be rather better, to put it kindly, when he was higher up and further back. I

389
thought he had been infected by the disease from which so many of us suffer—but that remark is intended, of course, in the most friendly way.
There is one other comment that I would make. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, quoted, very properly, from some of his earlier speeches, but he did not quote from a debate, a very interesting debate, which he initiated last year on the subject of public expenditure. Perhaps he will allow me to quote from what I said on that occasion, when I was briefed by the Treasury, so that it must have been right; and no one challenged it. I pointed out at that time that in the last three years of Conservative rule the increase of public expenditure had been 4.9 per cent. whereas in the three Labour years the increase had been less than 4 per cent. a year. I make that one point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who talked as though we had been so very prodigal, and expenditure had run away with us. But, as I say, I leave most of the replies to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
My Lords, I want to confine myself, almost as briefly, but I am afraid not quite so briefly, to one point, in the fashion widely adopted by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. But before coming to the Budget, which I support firmly, I should like to ask one question and make one comment on a different aspect of policy. The question I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is whether he can tell us anything about these very important developments (I gather that he will be able to do so) and what progress has been made recently towards a more rational international monetary system; because all of us, irrespective of Party—the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory—agree that progress must be made on that front; and made quickly.
I should like to make one comment before I come to the Budget, and that is about ministerial changes. The Government have lost one of their best members in Mr. Gordon Walker, and that I heartily deplore. But there are signs in the other changes of a new approach to social policy which will give fresh heart to many Socialists, and to many outside the Labour Party: particularly, I think, to many who work in the social services.
390
There will be a feeling that, for the first time, a radical social policy may be brought into line with a radical economic policy. I say that in passing, but I should not like to fail to mention a point which is very close to many of my activities and of very much interest to the House.
Now for the Budget and the reception thereof. I do not want to deal with details, which have been so well set out by the Leader of the House. I want to deal with the Budget in its historical and social setting. I can think of nothing in my own experience, or in my studies of the past, to compare with the reception accorded to this Budget. We wore told beforehand that only a miracle could enable the present Chancellor, Mr. Roy Jenkins, to make a success of his Budget. When he sat down—or the next morning —Mr. Francis Boyd, for example, the most learned of the Liberal commentators, suggested that a near-miracle had occurred. Certainly the members of the Labour Party, or the great majority of them, rose and waved their Order Papers and showed the utmost enthusiasm. You may say that has happened before, though I doubt whether any greater enthusiasm has ever been shown.
But what was much more striking, in the circumstances, was that the financial Press were also extremely cordial. In fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, I think that, taking the Budget as a whole and on its own, he was ready to pay quite a firm tribute. I must not do much quoting, but I will quote the Financial Times, which said:
"It is a Budget which fits the special needs of the situation remarkably well."
Much more was poured out to the same effect by other financial experts.
Well, my Lords, this is surely very remarkable and, as Gladstone once remarked when he received a telegram from the Queen, very significant. It is unique that a Budget like this should be applauded by the Labour Party members full of their Socialist ideals, and also by the financial Press, with all their very strict ideas of monetary policy. After all (and here is a point which I want to deal with for a moment, although I do not wish to talk too much from personal experience or for very long), we all know, if we have worked in the City—and I suppose that I am the only Socialist who,

391
has ever been the Chairman of a Bank—and as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who has worked so long in the City, knows perfectly well, there has been, to put it mildly, a lack of understanding for many years between the City and the Labour Party. The fact is that there has been what can only be called antagonism.
During the eight years that I worked in the City I made such small efforts as were in my power to bridge the gulf. I cannot say that it made any difference to anybody, but at any rate I can go on record as having made the efforts. This tension, or misunderstanding, is serious for the country. It is not a question of personalities. Going back to the past, Lord Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps were much respected in the City, so it is not a personal question in that sense. But there is felt to be a sharp conflict of ideas. In theory, of course, both sides, the Labour Party and the City, would agree that harmony should be possible. The financial leaders in the City would also agree, in principle, that whatever Government were in power should be served impartially. A Labour Government, for instance, should be given a fair run, as I am sure would be the intention of the leading people. On the Labour side, all the responsible leaders realised how important it was that the finances of our country should be run in a way that commanded a good degree of confidence. Yet, in spite of all that, suspicions have persisted, and, speaking broadly, still persist.
I would just say a word or two more, and speak carefully about the confidence factor, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I think his words were that there will be no confidence overseas unless there is confidence at home. I do not want to seem to be casting accusations against anybody, but let me start by pointing out that we are always told (and I was, of course, for three years in the Government and heard it from that end; but I look at it a little more dispassionately now) that we had dispelled a lot of confidence; that there was a great deal of good will which, by our own errors, we had somehow cast away. And certainly we are well aware of the fact that at certain moments a lack of confidence in the financial community in London might communicate itself to the financial world overseas. I
392
will not say more, but there was always that situation, and I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington (I know what a great patriot he is in peace and war) gave the firm answers which he told us that he had given. But answers of that kind have not always been given. Perhaps at times financial leaders in this country felt that they could not honestly give an answer of that kind.
If we look at it from a Labour point of view, there certainly has been no failure in recent years to recognise the need for preserving business and financial confidence. But the question has inevitably raised itself among people of our persuasion, both in high places and in low places: How high a price must a Labour Government pay to obtain and maintain this financial confidence? It is felt in many Labour circles that the price may be too high. There was a poet at the end of the nineteenth century called Crossland—no relation, so far as I know, to the President of the Board of Trade—who wrote a poem which runs as follows:
"I took the road to Hell,
But there were things I might have sold
And did not sell."
That is what Crossland, not the one who is President of the Board of Trade, said about his own life. What everyone has to realise is that if one is a Labour man by conviction one has to ask oneself whether it is possible to comply with the apparent requirements of the financial community or whether the time may come when some more drastic alternatives have to be adopted. I need not labour the point, but these are matters which are inevitably very much discussed amongst serious Labour people. I hope that there is a happy outcome and that the extreme difficulties which I have indicated will never occur.
Naturally I have been fully aware of these difficulties for many years. I am sure that the first step required is to avoid charges of ineptitude or worse against leaders on either side, and in this debate I think that they have been avoided. I do not think that the personal remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, would offend anybody. I do not think that we could call them very pernicious, even though they were not very funny. At any rate, they did not do anybody any good and they did not do

393
anybody any harm. What we want is a major effort at mutual comprehension between the Labour Party and the City and business circles generally. Here I feel that the Government have made a notable contribution. This Budget has been enthusiastically received by the City, by the financial experts and by the Labour Party. Here may be the beginning of a better era.
Perhaps we might ask ourselves how this has come about. Is it some conjuring trick? is it, to use the jargon now employed by many politicians about their opponents, some gimmick'? This is not a superficial point. I believe that it is an important feature of this dawning of mutual comprehension. Bankers distrust all politicians. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, feels about that: in his banking capacity I am sure he distrusts himself in his political capacity. Banks distrust politicians because basically they regard all politicians as optimists; and bankers, whatever their qualities—and they have aptitudes which are not always apparent—are not optimists. They distrust Labour politicians the most because they regard them as the most optimistic of the lot. That is putting it shortly but not untruly.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, is there any possible autobiography in that, may I inquire?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if I were distrusted, my bank was not distrusted in my periods of office. May I put it in that way. I am not accepting this point of view about the Labour Party being more optimistic than others, but speaking for myself and in a spirit which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would applaud, if someone asks me what I would put as the first weakness of the present Government in the last three and a half years, I would have no difficulty at all in answering. I would say that we have been too optimistic. But before the Conservatives begin to applaud this statement—though I think they are too wary to do that because they will think it is not going to he left there—may I say that this over-optimism has been true of every Government since the war. Probably on that I can pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, in his maiden speech in January. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will think
394
this a little unfair, but I can only assume that if the Liberals had been in power they would have suffered from tie same optimism. But we cannot demonstrate this.
If we are candid with ourselves, valuing our democracy, we must regard this as a kind of congenital weakness of politicians. This is particularly true at a time when public relations in all their aspects have been brought to suet a fine point that it is reckoned that if ou are going to obtain a lot of votes you are not going to get them by being like Cassandra. The person who is the most cheerful is likely to be the most popular. This is a danger which in a sense we have to live with, which we have to try to isolate and overcome. It is not question of honesty in the ordinary sense—a question of concealing the facts. If that were so, neither I nor anybody else would have stayed in the Government for five minutes.
We know that prediction is an impossible science, though it is worth trying because it is better than nothing. If prediction were possible, so great an economist as my noble friend Lord Robbins would make his fortune to-morrow. In truth, we do not know what is going to happen in the future, and therefore it is open to honest people to take either an optimistic or a more guarded view of the future. The leaders of all Parties—and as a member of an earlier Government I must take my share of responsibility—have taken the optimistic view whenever they have had the chance.
At last the Government have is truck a decisive blow for realism and prudence. The time has come when the sunshine stories had to stop. The Government have decided to stop them. I am proud to belong these days to the rank-and-file of a Party which has backed U.3 its leaders so well in taking up this new attitude, and proud to belong to a nation which I believe will increasingly give its approval. May I offer one word of friendly and respectful warning to the Government, which I would hope is unnecessary, because I do not want to seem to be moving too far towards an area which I inhabited in prehistoric times. Whatever may be said of its labours, a Labour Government which loses the appearance and still more the reality of

395
moral striving would lose everything which justifies its existence. I hope that no one inside or outside the Labour Party will suppose that a Budget of this kind, called negative by some critics, carries us far towards the achievement of the social ideal of the Labour Party, but I support this Budget because for the first time it begins to make it possible for those ideals to be achieved. We are at the beginning of a new era, in which self-restraint and self-discipline will be more than ever essential if we are to succeed, as I believe we shall.
There will be many in this country, Conservative and Liberal oppositions and other critics, who in the next few years will disagree with many of the things the Government do. But if we have a Labour Government, we must expect to have a Labour Party line. We believe in the equality of all human beings in a sense which I do not think would be fully accepted by our Conservative friends and which possibly would be accepted in a different way, if at all, by the Liberals. But I would hope that in spite of these differences, from now on the whole country will feel that we are being led by a Cabinet which is not only facing the existing realities but is determined to take a candid view of the future—that is, to hope for the best but to be prepared for all sorts of trials and tribulations, some of which cannot be foreseen at the present time. In that way, I believe that we are retaining the strenuous argument and dialectic of democracy, and in that way we shall elicit a new strength and a new unity from our country. It is certainly desired by everyone in this House and by almost everyone outside.
5.46 p.m.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, when I met my dear friend the noble Earl who has just sat down, he informed me that he looked upon his prospective speech from these Benches as being in the nature of a maiden speech. If I may take it that way, I should like to ask the indulgence of your Lordships to say how pleasant it is to hear him in his new capacity, I will not say "all passion spent", but at any rate "fancy free". Although I had not intended to do this, may I take issue with him on one matter to which he referred
396
in the course of his interesting speech, about the attitude of the City? It may be true that there are to be found in the Square Mile people who are dogmatically and unreflectingly opposed to all that is done by my noble friend's Party and all that has been thought in the past by the great Socialist thinkers, but I think it would convey a very false impression of the psychology of the City in the modern age if that attitude were to be regarded as representative.
Indeed, I myself, a comparatively recent accession to the inhabitants of the Square Mile, have been extremely surprised to discover with what benevolent feelings many of my colleagues in that area have in the past regarded the present Government. Being an ingrained Cross Bencher, with much cynicism with regard to the operations and intentions of most Governments, I was astonished to discover how many people in the City of London in 1964, when the present Government came into power, were going round saying, not in public but behind their hands, so to speak, at luncheon parties: "It is a good thing to have a change it was bad to have one Party in government so long. It is up to us to do what we can to help". If that attitude has diminished in recent years since 1964, if there is less spontaneous reaching out towards friendly contact with the Government, I dare say that there have been faults on both sides, but I am bound to say that I do not think it is only the fault of the City.
Having said that, I hasten to propitiate the noble Earl by saying that I am in substantial agreement with his general contention that, other things being equal, and at any rate from the purely technical point of view, the present prospects of our economy may be regarded as considerably more hopeful than they have been in the recent past. Whatever we may think of the responsibility for the events leading up to devaluation, without abating any right to criticise the Government on all sorts of long-term policies—and I adhere to the view that, at any rate from July, 1966, onwards, the Government had very bad luck in that respect—I suspect that we should all agree that the fact of devaluation is providing a useful stimulus to export. I know that appearances are somewhat deceptive. Because of the rise in the cost of certain

397
imported materials and the abolition of export rebates, the magnitude of the advantage of devaluation is exaggerated by the percentage change in the rate. But when all account has been taken of the necessary subtractions, there still remains in many fields an advantage of perhaps between 8 and 9 per cent. And if the pressure of domestic demand is sufficiently restrained, this should surely prove a powerful influence to introducing a balance-of-payments surplus.
Now that the Budget has at last been produced, we have some assurance that the restraint on demand is going to happen. I still wish that some gesture of this sort—the immediate application of the regulator, for instance—could have taken place on the morrow of devaluation. The public would have taken anything in those weeks; and the position of the pound in the foreign exchanges would have been powerfully strengthened.
But in spite of its sins of retrospection—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in this respect—and his somewhat unworthy sneer at top managers who provide for retirement by saving, I should not wish to withhold great admiration from Mr. Jenkins' general conception. He certainly can claim that at least we have measures which do not err on the side of caution in imposing the necessary constraints. I do not go any of the way with those who argue that he could safely have done less, but I do not think that we should fail to render tribute to what, in spite of the jokes that have been made about the use of the words, I persist in regarding as an act of considerable political courage which, from the technical point of view, at any rate, meets the requirements of the situation. Needless to say, I do not doubt the desirability of further scrutiny of public expenditure, so powerfully urged by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington; but I suspect that this involves time and perhaps a radical reformulation of certain conceptions of public service. I think it would have been unreasonable to ask this of Mr. Jenkins in the short time in which he has occupied his important office.
Still concentrating on the purely domestic situation, I think it seems fairly clear that the main danger remaining is the danger of renewed inflation of costs by run-away increases of the wage and
398
salary level. There is no doubt that this is well recognised by the Government, who, as we all know, are running into severe difficulties with some of the it supporters in providing safeguards against this contingency. Incidentally, I should like to express some admiration for Mr. Jenkins's candour in making it clear that this is a situation in which it is positively desirable that, for the time being, in order to restrain consumption, prices should rise faster than money incomes. But I hope very much that in seeking to deal with this matter the Government will not rely exclusively on any form of incomes policy. Even after the discussion that has taken place, I cannot help thinking that this is a matter on which a great deal of confusion still persists.
Let me guard myself against misunderstanding in this connection. I have no doubt at all that the Government must have an incomes policy in regard to the public sector. After all, the Government are the employer there and unless they have a policy on their demand for labour this important section of the economy must remain in sheer confusion. Nor should I wish to deny that policies of freeze or semi-freeze in the economy as a whole are necessarily ineffective in the very short run. I think experience shows that they are not easy to enforce and that the longer they are resorted to the more resistance they encounter. But I do not doubt, without in the least abdicating my position as a lover of freedom, that in periods of great emergency, if the cooperation of the trade unions and employers can be secured, such policies may have a useful stabilising influence. I do, however, doubt very much whether it is wise to rely on their effectiveness for any but a comparatively short period. They generate anomalies while they last: what is more, when they cease to operate they run the danger of leaving behind them banked-up demands which eventually bring about a situation not very different from that which they were set up to avoid. Indeed it is difficult to be sure that with a policy of freeze or semi-freeze limited to a year or eighteen months, the eventual rise in costs will be much less than it would have been if there had been no such policy.
Hence, my Lords, I submit that it is of paramount importance to make the main aim of policy not the control of incomes

399
but the control of aggregate expenditure. And here I should like to emphasise the importance of not overlooking the part that can be played in this respect by proper regulation of the credit base. I know that there are those whose views deserve respect who consider that attention to the movements of the quantity of money is an obsolete preoccupation. I know that it is fashionable in some quarters to regard the fluctuation of the credit base as being necessarily and desirably passive to the needs of trade. But I very much doubt the wisdom of this attitude. I certainly should not wish to be understood to be arguing that monetary policy alone is capable of exercising a sufficient control of the volume of aggregate expenditure, and I know few at the present day who would maintain such a position. But I would urge that it would be unwise to leave that out or to ignore the very powerful assistance it can render.
In this connection I feel tempted to relate to your Lordships a true story. You will remember that in 1958 the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and two of his Ministerial companions, Mr. Birch and Mr. Powell, felt constrained to resign their posts on the matter of financial policy—a gesture, I must say, which I have always admired as typifying that regard for principle which keeps public life sweet. On the day on which their resignations were announced I was standing in a club reading on the tape that was to me this melancholy news. There was an economist of the younger generation standing within a yard or two, and when he saw me—whom no doubt he regarded as belonging to an utterly reactionary school of thought—he turned to his companion and said in a loud and somewhat aggressive voice, "This is the best news we have heard for many a long day. It is the death of the quantity theory of money."
Well, my Lords, I am far from contending that the quantity theory of money is the last word in wisdom in matters of this sort, but if we look at what is happening among some of the most advanced thinkers on these subjects in other parts of the world it must be said at least that it takes a very long time dying, and that sometimes it shows signs of reviving. And I would submit that
400
if we look at what has been happening to the quantity of money in our own economy in recent years we may find some reason for thinking that you cannot omit to restrain its increase without running a risk of frustrating the effects of other very necessary measures. I hope very much that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will not regard the homely wisdom of the quantity theory as being entirely beneath his attention in the anxious position in which he finds himself at the present day.
So much as regards domestic policy and its prospects, other things being equal. But now we are in a situation in which other things are not likely to be equal and domestic policy is not likely to be able to dominate the situation, however much it may seek to influence it. We are in the grip of tremendous events in the world at large, many of which are outside our power of control, and prediction in such circumstances is almost anybody's guess. But perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two general remarks—not predictions—which represent my own effort to see the position in some sort of perspective.
First of all, it seems to me important to realise that our troubles are not due to any lack of world liquidity in the recent past. Indeed, there has been no lack of such liquidity since the end of the war: look at what has happened to the value of money. Everywhere during this period there has been a most considerable rise of prices. In such circumstances it seems to me to be impossible reasonably to contend that there has been too little general liquidity in the world at large: rather I would urge that there has been too much. In the future, I agree the picture begins to appear different. A little way ahead we probably walk through the looking glass, so to speak, and find ourselves confronted with a real problem of this sort. That is, of course, the raison d'être for all the work which has been done recently by the Group of Ten and others, on the institution of Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary Fund.
No, my Lords, the main cause of the recent gold crisis has been not the absence of general liquidity but the growing deficit in the United States balance of

401
payments. Needless to say, the operation of this cause has been vastly reinforced by apprehensions and rumours of a possible change in the price of gold. But ultimately it is the United States deficit which is responsible. Doubtless it is true that this deficit does not spring from any very fundamental malaise in the United States' economy. The entire deficit is fractional in regard to the United States' gross national product. It has not been, as ours has been, a deficit on current account; it is essentially a deficit on capital account due to what, having regard to the United States' present external earning capacity, has been excessive investment abroad, foreign aid and war expenditure—causes much more susceptible to control than more deep-seated maladies. Nevertheless, this deficit on capital account has given rise to a shrinkage in the United States' gold reserve; and this shrinkage has been serious and growing.
Such a state of affairs inevitably arouses international apprehensions. It is true that these apprehensions have been heightened by propaganda emanating in certain high quarters in Continental Europe. But if there had been none of this the apprehensions would still have grown. There was, of course, a time in the early '50s when an increase in the dollar holding was positively preferred by many Continental Central Banks. But recently such increases have encountered more and more reluctance; and, it must be admitted, understandably so. After all, however much we may deplore the attitude of the French Government to Allies who once helped to deliver them from servitude under the Nazis, their analysis is logically correct when they argue that holding increasing amounts of dollars is, in effect, making loans to the United States. And it is clear that from their point of view this is not necessarily a desirable state of affairs.
Such a situation was surely bound to lead to trouble sooner or later; and it must be admitted that such trouble has been predicted in many quarters. Whatever we may think of his views with regard to the desirability of a rehabilitation of the old-fashioned gold standard, it must be put to the credit of Monsieur Rueff that, in season and out of season, he has pointed to the latent dangers in the present workings of the post-war gold
402
exchange standard and the enormous volume of free dollar holdings abroad. I should like to add that, although in the end I do not support Monsieur Rueff's proposals for the reform of the international monetary system, I know from long personal acquaintance that he at least is not an enemy of the English-speaking world; and it can be cited as a proof of this that his plan for the adjustment of the price of gold carried with it a generous provision for easing the burden on the reserve centres concerned of the sterling and dollar balances.
Now, as I see things, this crisis is not one which can be cured by the mere institution of Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary Fund. I hasten to say that I approve of this plan. I hope that it will be possible to bring it into being. But it is essentially a plan for easing the general liquidity situation in the future. Even if it could be brought into being immediately, its chances of survival would be small indeed if the United States balance of payments continued to be adverse. It might help for a time, but in the end people would no more be willing to accumulate paper claims on the International Monetary Fund than they would be to accumulate dollars.
But equally, in my judgment, the underlying situation is not to be cured by a change in the price of gold. I am not against such a change in all circumstances, although if it were to take place at present I should be extremely apprehensive of its inflationary potentialities. But, so far as the present unbalance is concerned, all that it could do would be to provide a further breathing space in which measures might be taken to alleviate the deficit on the United States balance of payments. If this deficit persists, then, even if there has I been a change in the price of gold, there will still eventually arrive an ultimate breakdown of the dollar exchange.
In the end, it seems to me, there are only two possible solutions. The first is some contraction of United States' expenditure, either at home or abroad, or both. I do not myself believe that this need be very severe, especially if, as might be hoped, it were accompanied by expansion on the part of countries at present in surplus. But I am afraid that.

403
so far as we are concerned, it certainly will not make things easier. Failing this, however, the alternative is a total demonetisation of gold, at any rate for the time being, by the United States' authorities, and a freeing of restrictions on movements of the dollar in the exchange market. If one likes to put it that way one can describe this as letting the dollar float.
Such a solution has some attractions in pure theory; and, let us not deceive ourselves, there are now many high authorities in America who support it. But it seems to me that it is likely in practice to be attended by many unwished-for complications. In the first place, it is very unlikely that the financial authorities elsewhere would all be willing to see the dollar fluctuate in terms of their own money. They would therefore hitch on to the dollar in some way or other and maintain fixity of exchange rates therewith. It seems to me probable that we ourselves should feel impelled to do this, and I am sure that quite a number of other centres would do likewise.
In such a state of affairs the centres which continued to maintain the old parity with gold would be at an increasing disadvantage in markets in which their producers were in competition with members of the dollar group, as were members of the old gold bloc in the years following President Roosevelt's experiment with adjustable dollar rates. The probability is, therefore, that they would be tempted to devaluations in terms of gold, and this in turn would easily lead to further depreciation of the floating dollar and associated currencies. It might come out all right in the end, but it seems likely to me that it would give rise to a period of financial anarchy and confusion which would do good to very few of us.
At the moment, the position is that the central bankers have attempted to stave off ultimate decisions by setting un a two-tier system in which gold transfers among themselves take place at existing parities but the private gold market is free. And so far this system has been effective; the price of gold in the free market has fallen from the levels it attained at the height of the crisis. But one is bound to ask oneself: How long can this situation last?
404
Doubtless if there is a real prospect of reduction in the United States deficit, then the free market price of gold will fall, the gap will be closed, and the necessity for these exceptional measures may disappear. But if there is no such prospect, then nothing can be more certain than a period of greater and greater strain. The temptation on the other central bankers to make a profit on their increasing gold holdings must eventually become very great indeed, and in the next crisis a two-tier system will no longer be available.
What will actually happen? Frankly, my Lords, I do not know. So much in the present situation depends on attitudes and policies whose occurrence and influence is anybody's guess. But of one thing I am certain: that for us the supreme need is to keep our own house in order and to support whatever measures are necessary to achieve this end. Any relaxation in such circumstances can only make the situation worse both for us and for the world at large.
6.20 p.m.
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, I feel rather shy and almost impertinent at intervening in this debate this afternoon, after listening to so many powerful and effective speeches on high finance. I am aware that my experience of finance is mostly concerned with the brown envelopes that arrive on my breakfast table in the morning. I know that my speech will be on that sort of plane, in marked contrast to the fine speech to which your Lordships have just listened.
I am one of those who regrets the recent increases in taxation, which seem to me to be aimed primarily at reducing private spending rather than raising revenue. To my mind the increases kill incentive and are inflationary. I certainly would advocate a reduction in public expenditure on extra Ministries, the Civil Service, and so on, and I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who quoted Mr. Gladstone, that we should all remember his adage when he said:
"Let the money fructify in the pockets of the people".
Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer for six years, during which time British trade rode high, and I for one would like to see a return to that sort of policy.

405
I do not agree that to increase exports it is necessary to have higher taxation. I was in Wolverhampton only last night, speaking to members of the motor car industry, and they assured me that by damping down demand at home one did not necessarily increase exports of cars abroad. They said that by producing fewer numbers of cars one does not have the economies of scale if there is a good home market as well. If one has to accept (which I do not) that we need higher taxes in order to increase exports, then could we have more emphasis on reducing imports and less on increasing exports? The latter policy now appears to be linked with higher taxation. A large part of this country's imports are made up of food, fuel and raw materials, and this evening I want to advocate that we should make greater use of our own natural resources and of our import-saving industries. These industries, if flourishing, would in turn require more up-to-date machinery which would create employment.
Already this afternoon we have heard a little about the part that agriculture might play, and I want first to deal with food. In 1966, the imports of food and live animals totalled £1,600 million, of which £1,000 million was in respect of commodities which might be produced in this country. This £1,000 million made up 17 per cent. of our total imports. Aiming for the moment to reduce the £1,000 million by £250 million—and in any case we shall need £200 million worth more food by 1972—this could largely be achieved by an improvement in farm size structure, by speeding the move towards more intensive farming and higher management standards, rather than by large capital expenditure involving further imports. From 1952 to 1964, agricultural output increased by 30 per cent. while capital expenditure increased only by 18 per cent., most of this money being spent with the home manufacturers. A good deal of increased efficiency and output lies in the hands of the farmers themselves, some of whom will have to get rid of certain narrow and parochial thoughts and concepts. The Government and Parliament can also help enormously by winning the confidence of the farmers so that they can invest and plan ahead, and by encouraging an expansionist policy and also helping with finance for improv-
406
ing farm structure and assisting with co-operation.
Half the United Kingdom's food imports are accounted for by cattle and sheep. These animals must therefore play a large part in an agricultural import saving programme, and I feel bound to say at this stage how much I regret that the farmers' confidence in producing more of these animals should recently have been undermined by the decision to readmit Argentine meat—for indeed what incentive and confidence can there be for increasing herds and flocks while farmers live with the lurking fear of foot-and-mouth disease and the holocaust that it brings? If confidence can be restored, it is reasonable to contend that by 1972–73 an increased milk production—2,550 million gallons to 3,000 million gallons—can save us £70 million worth of imports; and by eliminating the various factors which create the instability current in the fatstock market, the national beef herd can be increased so as to save the country £60 million worth of imports by 1972. Both beef and dairy cattle would be fed on home grown grain and grass, and there is scope for another I million acres of grain by 1972, making up to 10 million in all, which, along with higher yields, should result in an import saving of about £90 million worth of grain for animal feeding alone.
As I have said, Government and Parliament can help by restoring confidence and by calling deliberately for an expansionist policy. We should depend more on control of imports of some sort and forget restrictions such as the standard quantities for cereals, and price subsidies. Also, such features as depressed bulk milk prices and the unstable fatstock prices are not compatible with this policy.
Turning from agriculture to its sister industry of sylviculture, I should mention that one-tenth of this country's imports, and the third largest imported commodity, amounting to £500 million a year, is timber. In fact, we produce only 8½ per cent. of the wood that is used in this country. We buy substantial quantities from Russia, Canada, Sweden, Finland and so on, not one of whom buys anything like the same value of goods or services from us. There are many jobs for which there is no satisfactory substitute for timber. Therefore,

407
if we are to reduce imports we must somehow increase the proportion of home grown timber used in this country from the minute figure of 8½ per cent. What are the prospects? Owing to devaluation, foreign timber will cost from 10 per cent. to 17 per cent. more, and this indeed should help the home trade. But how far can the home trade respond within its obvious physical limitations? If we cut down every tree in this country I believe that the timber would last us for only two and a half years. The Forestry Commission's Progress Report 1960–65 stated that one-eighth of Britain's land surface was under trees, two-fifths being under the control of the Forestry Commission and three-fifths being privately owned. There is good co-operation between the two sectors, and three-fifths of the whole is managed under forestry working plans made or approved by the Commission.
Although home grown timber takes care of 8½ per cent. of our consumption, the total annual acreage is in fact larger, at 11·8 per cent., and the total area of trees is increasing annually by 50,000 acres. More must be done. Marginal and waste land should be planted. Farmers should help themselves and the country by planting shelter belts and avoiding the sort of tragedies that they have had in East Anglia with the dust storms. More sawmills should be merged and rationalised. The Government and Parliament can help by not imposing various penal capital taxes on larger forestry units, and by including sylviculture when capital grants are being considered for agriculture.
A speech on this subject, I feel, would be incomplete without some reference to fuel, and, of course, one's thoughts immediately turn to coal. I have come up to-day from the East Midlands, which as your Lordships know is one of the main coal-producing areas in this country, and where there are now 72,000 miners at work. It is estimated that by 1980 there will be only 14,500 miners working there. Obviously there will be a large gap left behind. I hope that with this rundown of the coal industry, which I suppose is inevitable, we can make provision now, or start to make provision now, for other industries to be brought into these areas and so avoid the sort of calamity that is happening in Kentucky now. Even so, I believe, as a consumer who pays £5 4s.
408
a ton for what we call washed singles, this fuel is extremely competitive and will remain the obvious fuel for most power stations, certainly in that part of the world, for a very long time to come. Therefore, I hope that the industry will not be run down at a galloping rate.
There are many other industries which can help to save on imports. I do not want to go through them all now, because it would take far too long. I have mentioned one or two of the major industries, and I hope I shall be assured by the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government that they can make certain moves along these lines to enable these industries to play a greater part in solving our economic position and reducing imports.
6.32 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and, if I may say so, it came as something rather like a breath of fresh air in an economic debate, which is often in terms of dry-as-dust economics and figures. I was glad to hear him raise this very important question of increasing the production of home grown food. I sometimes think that when we are speaking of these economic crises, when the newspapers print their headlines, what is often forgotten is the great part that increased food production can play in helping to solve these balance-of-payments difficulties which all Governments find themselves in from time to time. I think that this is in the Government's policy—this attempt to take the place of imports by encouraging production in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said in his speech, it has to be looked at again, because it may very well be of far greater importance than we realise when it all comes to be worked out.
I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, also referred in his speech to the question of timber. Timber has become an enormous import item to all the various manufacturing industries which use it, either for convenience or because it is the fashionable hardwood, and it becomes simpler to import this material already cut and ready to go into the factories. Again, although it may be a long-term matter, I think it is not too soon for the Government to begin

409
to look at its policy of afforestation. A number of our hardwoods can be used more extensively. Many of the furniture industries in this country grew up in the use of beech and birch and elm and ash. A vigorous policy of afforestation could save a very considerable import bill from those countries which do not take a great deal of our exports.
I noticed that in the speeches this afternoon there were many criticisms of what is normally referred to as Government spending—public spending in the public sector. I noticed, also, that not many speakers, if any at all, referred to the cuts that have already been made in the Government's policy and by the Chancellor in his statement of policy. Considerable defence cuts have been made. Some are long term, and some will begin to make themselves felt in the reasonable future. It is not very easy suddenly overnight to make a big cut in your defence expenditure. Both here and in the United States and in many other countries this is not a question of troops and ships; whole ranges of technical, scientific, engineering industries are geared to these Government programmes. In all large countries to-day, suddenly to turn round and say, "We must lop off here and make a cut there" is not feasible.
I always remember the period of 1933 when the rearmament programme began in this country. It was then in fact that our revival in the engineering industries began and when unemployment started to fall. We do not want to get into a deflationary period again by talking idly or too gloomily about these defence cuts. Running a nation is rather like running a business. You can reduce your national overheads with a stroke of the pen. You can cut the overheads in a business with a stroke of the pen, if you want to. But what matters in a national concern and in a business is the product you are producing, whether you are producing it properly in sufficient quantities and exporting it. With these discussions about the public sector, and the reduction in defence consistent with the Government's foreign policy programme, we shall get through these problems, when all the dust has died down, if we have the right product which is being produced at the right price and exported to the countries to which we wish to send it.
410
In the debate to-day, in reply to the speech from the Leader of the House, there was constant reference to the number of civil servants and why it had not been cut. The number of civil servants, which is a broad term, has gone up in every large industrial country a through-out the world, and I should have thought that we would be better employed, instead of playing around with figures like 57,000, if we concentrated upon a national drive for efficiency, whether in Government Departments, Government administration, or wherever it may be.
We are asked to-day to take note of the recent developments in the economic situation, and I hope we shall not be too gloomy about it, listening to some of the speeches to-day; because there is no doubt, on an impartial assessment, that since the Budget proposals and since devaluation, and taking the Government's policies as a whole, which one must do, there is an improvement. I think the Budget proposals of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are working. There is an improvement in the economy, and I think that will improve the balance of trade and also raise the level of world trade. That is important, too. There is a lot of talk about the balance of payments, but if we get too big a balance of payments we may make it difficult for some of our customers overseas to buy our goods; therefore the improvement in our balance of payments must be consistent with our efforts and the policy of this Government to help raise the general level of world trade.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who said that on this occasion in the White Paper productivity comes first before prices and incomes. I think this is the most important factor in the whole situation: increasing productivity, together, as noble Lords have said to-day, with confidence abroad and at home. On this question of confidence I am not a pessimist. I believe that if the Government measure work, as I think they will the Press will give more space to the success of that policy than to "knocking" the pound and constantly talking of a second devaluation and so-called political character assassinations. If this policy works, despite the fact that the national Press of this country in the majority support

411
the Opposition, I believe that they would give credit for, and publicity to, the achievements of the Government.
I have said that I believe this problem of productivity to be the kernel of the whole of the Government's economic proposals. But I would ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether this is really being put over to management and work people at plant level. After all, we depend upon them. They will have to work these measures. My right honourable friend the First Secretary of State, who now has the responsibility for this task, has considerable flair, and I think that if, with all her ability and skill, she can set herself to put this over and win the approval of the people of this country and of those engaged in industry, in plant and management and so on, she will become the export darling of this country. A problem which any Government has to face is that of effective communication, conveying considered Government policy to all concerned with all the machinery of mass media, because without this response the final or maximum effort of any policy must be doubtful.
I would suggest to my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State, that she invites both Television and Press to co-operate with her and the T.U.C. in putting this over, to make productivity and productivity agreements understood by the man in the street, at plant level and at shop floor level. It is no good putting it over to them in the economic language of the balance of payments. At present, I have serious misgivings about this matter. I am not sure that this policy, and the rewards that productivity agreements can bring, with increased income to all concerned, is being satisfactorily put over at the present time at plant level to the man on the shop floor and to management and staff.
There is another salient point which I doubt is being put over to the people of this country; that is, whether or not they understand the choice that is before this country to-day. It is the choice between the old free-for-all, "Stop-go" and recurring economic crises and building a modern and prosperous industrial State able to compete with the rest of the world. Simplification it may be, but I believe that that is the choice which this
412
country, whatever Government is in power, has to face.
For my part, I believe that big changes in this country are now inevitable. No one likes redundancies. These big changes that are taking place in industry and in the development areas involve redundancies. Nobody likes moving to some other part of the country which he does not know. Industrialists do not like moving factories. No one likes modernising a plant for the sake of modernisation. But the pace is increasing in mergers and the grouping together in larger units of industries like the motor car industry. Reference has been made in this respect to the mining industry. It is all going on apace.
The changes, applied in toto with the whole of the Government's policy, and not just its Budget proposals and devaluation, to the development areas, to retraining and so on, can in my view amount to an industrial and technological revolution in this country. There are areas in this country which, within a few years, when these changes have become effective, will never again be recognised as the same areas. This is not only the choice which this country has to make; it is the choice for this Government—indeed for any Government: whether to have the old "Stop-Go", out of the embers of the old free-for-all and pulling out the stops to get elected every four years, or to accept the short-term sacrifices which have to be made now in this industrial renaissance to build a modern industrial State able to compete with and face the world.
To their credit, I think that the Government have had the courage to choose the long-term policy. In the early stages it is going to be unpopular. I have not the slightest doubt that Party capital is going to be made out of this. It should have been started more than ten years ago. But I firmly believe that if it is carried through, as the Prime Minister said in another place and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech, in two years we may see that it has been more than worth while and may have been the real basis of our economic recovery.
6.48 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, if I may, I should like to inquire a little more than we have done so far to-day into the structures that have been created

413
during roughly the past twenty years to safeguard from disaster or collapse the complicated economies of the highly industrialised and principal trading countries of the world. A few years ago I was discussing some of the dangers which threatened with a distinguished banker in New York, and he said: "We know much more than we did in the 'thirties about how things work. We cannot be sure that we can avoid trouble in the future, but we are hopeful that we can". He was more modest in his belief than many economists and some bankers today, who seem to regard the two principal organisations of inter-governmental co-operation, the O.E.C.D. and the so-called Committee of Ten of the I.M.F., as satisfactory custodians and directors of our monetary system.
May we examine this claim by testing what has happened in spite of the efforts of these two inter-governmental bodies? These are the disturbing words of a serious-minded economist, a lifelong Liberal, whom I greatly respect, written in the Sunday Times ten days ago. He says:
"I speculated on the good faith of government which, in my lifetime, has manifested itself as a liar, a thief and a cad. I hold savings certificates bought in 1953. The cost of living has nearly doubled since then. I hold some 2½ per cent. Dalton's brought out at a hundred on the assertion that no patriotic person could expect better terms. They now stand at 34, worth in real terms about 12."
It is terrible to read words like that written by an economist of repute.
On Friday last week, the B.B.C. broadcast a programme at 3 o'clock in the afternoon warning that one could no longer save in the simple way and expect the value of one's savings to remain constant. If savings were not to be eroded by inflation, investment was a business which every small saver now had to be able to cope with. This is a big deterrent to saving. The United States has done rather better than we have up to date, but since 1952 the dollar has lost 22 per cent. of its value; the consumer price index is up 19 per cent. over the last ten years and the runaway is picking up dangerous speed.
One recalls that all former checks and restraints which were devised to operate impartially and almost automatically in support of some monetary discipline have been thrown away. Governments have
414
taken over the central banks and abolished for themselves the safeguards which they formerly imposed to ensure that the banks operated honestly in the issue of what were then called "bank notes". A former Leader of the Opposition, who was always very truthful, told me one day in this House: "Make no mistake about it, since we nationalised the Bank of England it is the Chancellor, not the Governor, who calls the tune". In the language of to-day, it is the Ministers of Finance who hold the Governors of their central banks as puppets on a string, although some puppets are more difficult to play with than others. But these can be changed, usually without causing much popular concern.
Under very strong pressure from the American Government an attempt is at present being made to diminish the role of gold in the monetary system to prevent a rise in its price over 35 dollars an ounce. Is this another sign that the kind of democracy we support is determined to rid itself of all self-discipline? Are we seeing before our eyes the triumph of the Marxist predictions? Are any rules, any disciplines, unacceptable as enslavement? I cannot bring myself to accept the cynical view, so often expressed to-day, that no Government will act honestly if it does not suit it. I am pressing this matter as I think that, bad as have been the economic decisions which the present Government have taken, it could not have been so bad had it not been for the general atmosphere of "anything goes". "If the rules get in the way, change the rules for we will not tolerate restraint upon the exercise of our powers" It could not go on, and surely when the Government had to submit to supervision, as they have had to do on behalf of their creditors, it was time for a Government with self-respect to quit.
What are we left with now? In effect, I suggest that we are left with two Governments: the one trying to placate the supervisors; the other denying any obligation to change course. In the political field there is the same schizophrenia. Disputes have been engendered very much because of the apparent belief of this Government in their own infallability, not only in respect of our own affairs but also of the affairs of other people. This delusion is probably the only unifying influence in the

415
Party. We have a Government split in two parts which cannot tackle any problem because, whatever the outcome of negotiations, any settlement would raise more dissension between the two parts of the Government than achieving no solution at all, doing nothing.
I suggest that what we most need is a little enslavement to honesty. Altering the rules in the middle of the game would be quickly recognised as dishonest—that is, if it were a game. It is time that we spoke bluntly. In spite of the immediate, perhaps somewhat superficial, salutary effect of the Budget, there is a great deal of plain dishonesty in the Budget. The Government's Prices and Incomes policy is, in my view, an attempt to treat the symptoms rather than the disease. If there were a satisfactory monetary system, this control would be largely unnecessary. At best it can only slow down the inevitable, continuing inflation. I call it "incomes and prices policy". As for productivity, as my noble friend Lord Byers pointed out, this can best be settled between the trade unions and employers in each case without the complication of constant intervention. With all the talk of productivity, no one has pointed out that productivity must result in sales. Without sales, productivity would be quite useless. This is, therefore, a matter which can be settled only by the individual industry working together with the trade unions.
It is plain dishonesty to encourage people to believe that they will get an increase in earnings if the increase is to be more than taken away by allowing the value of the currency to slip. It is plain dishonesty to alter the rules applicable under the existing law relating to such matters as existing settlements and to policies taken out under the Married Women's Property Act. It is plain dishonesty to alter the rules under the existing laws for gifts inter vivos.
One can, without dishonesty, alter the rules for new transactions, but not for those which have been authorised under the law which was in force at the time. This Budget is unique in its provisions for the robbery of children, because the parent is the one person who has been deprived for many years of the incentive which he formerly had to work to set
416
aside part of his income for the benefit of his children. We all know that the Communist philosophy treats honesty merely as a matter of convenience. But at least, one knows where one is. That has never been, and I am sure that the majority of our people do not wish it to become, the philosophy of this country. Either the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know what he is proposing, or he is a party—let us be plain—to these dishonest actions. Further, in so far as the Budget is a Cabinet responsibility, do all the members of the Cabinet wish to be party to what is plain dishonesty? Since the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to his great credit, felt it desirable to resign, we have not heard of any other members of the Government resigning. Perhaps some may yet wish to think again.
Do the Government really believe that the country can, in the long run, prosper from dishonest policies, even if they are wrapped up in words which lawyers find it difficult to understand? They are only just beginning to try to explain some of these provisions. They cannot do that fully until next month, when the Finance Bill is printed. Even lawyers find it difficult to understand, and demagogy covers up by misleading expressions, such as "We will not be slaves to tradition"—or to bankers, to gold or to whatever the speaker at the moment thinks will rouse the audience which is being addressed.
I want to ask: What can be made of the latest series of inter-Governmental discussions which have been taking place, first in London, then in Rio, then in Washington and lately in Stockholm? I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, seemed quite happy—I will not say about what was being done. because I understand that there is as yet no final draft of the proposals from the Stockholm meeting—and I wonder whether these proposals, if and when they are settled, will emerge as a major reform of our monetary system. The Americans are interested in how to get out of deficit. They now realise that there is no alternative. In the meantime, they hope that these proposals will put off a headlong flight from paper money, to which The Times recently drew attention. That was the cause of the trouble in the gold market.

417
I should like to look at the proposals, so far as they can be called proposals, from the point of view of whether they are likely to make for greater honesty in the monetary system in future. The most reliable report which I can find from Stockholm contains these words:
"The great ingenuity of the S.R.D. formula"—
that is, the Special Drawing Rights formula—
"is that both sides have been able to claim that it meets their particular demands. The French have so far been quite happily able to describe S.R.Ds as credit while everyone else describes them as money."
I suggest that if acceptance of these proposals depends upon cunningly devised words which different parties will differently interpret, it is not a very happy augury for the practice of honesty in a reformed monetary system.
To me, it sounds as if the International Monetary Fund, with its talk of paper gold, is seeking to realise the dream of the alchemists of the Middle Ages. If what they produce is gold, every member of the Fund will want it, and there will not be sufficient. If what they produce is paper, who will want it? If the paper is tied to or backed by gold, what is the advantage over gold itself, except, perhaps, to secure a redistribution of reserves in favour of the countries which are in deficit? I see many formidable difficulties ahead if this is the purpose. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said about our mutual friend Mr. Rueff.
My Lords, I conclude by suggesting for consideration some conditions which seem to me, and to others who have studied this problem, to be necessary for the establishment of a satisfactory monetary order. I should particularly welcome close consideration by the noble Lords who are, or have been, associated with the trade unions to the sort of ideas which I am putting forward for a variable bonus in the general wage structure. I may briefly run through these conditions for your Lordships' consideration. First, it is necessary, in the event of an unfavourable balance of payments, to secure a contraction of the money supply in the country concerned, and vice versa. The more automatic and inevitable this is, the more satisfactory will be the result. I do not think that that proposition would be disputed.
418
Secondly, we need an agreed and common definition of "money supply" and of the elements to be included in the definition, because in different countries it is differently defined.
Thirdly, as soon as a sufficient supply of gold is available reserves should, in my view, be held in gold. In the meantime a convertible alternative should not carry interest. I think the effect on the balance of payments of the United States and ourselves of paying interest on convertible dollars and convertible pounds, instead of settling in gold at the time of payment, has not been sufficiently understood. These convertible dollars go back to New York on deposit on which interest is paid until gold is claimed or until it is available. Before the last negotiations there was an understanding with certain Governments that gold should not be asked for in exchange for these convertible dollars. So the basis of the gold exchange standard, which depended upon the free convertibility of the dollar and the pound, was undermined by these agreements. No doubt some Governments were willing to agree to this, because of the interest that was earned while they were not paid in gold.
Fourthly, in order to make more practicable the contraction and expansion of the money supply I suggest that the trade unions might study whether it would be practicable to negotiate all wage rates and salaries on the basis of a basic rate with a variable percentage element of bonus which would fluctuate with the balance of payments. A too rigid wage structure hampers the working of any system of contraction and expansion of the money supply. I think this idea worthy of study to see whether, if it was explained, it could be made satisfactory and acceptable.
Fifthly, with the renewed distrust of paper money following the devaluation of the pound sterling and the threat to the paper dollar, confidence in the integrity of democratic Governments is not likely to be restored while we have double standards—one law applicable to borrowing from the International Monetary Fund and another to borrowings by Governments from their own nationals. In my view, it is therefore undesirable that a citizen should be prevented from protecting himself against the dishonesty of his own Government

419
in the over-printing of a paper currency, if for no other reason than that this prevents the Government from having a very useful early warning system which should cause them to look at their policies.
Sixthly, in order to increase the supply of gold consideration should be given immediately to a suitable rise in the price, without disturbing the existing parities of the exchange rates of the countries who are members of the O.E.C.D. Because of American objections this matter has not been discussed at all in any of the international organs of co-operation. I hope that some of these suggestions will make a small contribution to the current discussion of this important matter.
7.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should first like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for not being here when he started his speech. I heard only the last half of it, owing to an unforeseen event. Also, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down, on the amount of financial common sense in his speech. I feel it is a great pity that it could not have been made earlier, when more people could have heard it. However, I sincerely hope that some members of Her Majesty's Government may read it.
I should like to quote the first line of the Government White Paper, Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969. That says:
"We now have a real basis for putting our balance of payments into substantial surplus and paying off our debts abroad".
Perhaps that is rather optimistic. But, of course, I agree that a Budget which takes £900 million out of the economy, allied to devaluation, certainly gives a basis for putting our affairs in order. I have to differ with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who said that it required great courage on the part of the Labour Government to produce such a Budget. I do not want to appear ungenerous in any way, but to my way of thinking the Labour Government producing this Budget are rather akin to a man being chased by a bull—the bull being the international creditors. If you are chased
420
by a bull, as I have been twice, it helps you to make a superhuman effort in jumping a fence. Perhaps I am being ungenerous, but I wanted to make that point. Of course, it is true that the Budget gives us a basis, but we shall have to do a great deal more if we are to succeed.
Personally—although my personal opinion does not matter at all—I have never been too keen on an incomes policy. That does not mean to say that eventually it will not work. But, to my mind, by instituting an incomes policy you are controlling the economy; and once a Government starts to control the economy the standard of living of the people is lowered. Any Government can soon put their balance of payments right, for all they have to do, if they really want to go the whole hog, is to have import certificates and forbid certain imports. For instance, they can forbid the importation of champagne, Spanish tomatoes, tobacco, and so on, although they could not prevent the import of all tobacco because they would cause a riot. But a favourable balance could soon be created if the economy was placed in a straitjacket. I do not believe in doing that. We cannot have a closed economy, as there can be in some self-supporting countries, because we are a great world trading nation.
To my mind, the only way in which we can really put our affairs in order—I have said this so often before that it is hardly worth repeating—is to increase our earnings. But, of course, we cannot increase our earnings unless British industry produces more without an increase in production costs. It is easy to say that—it is easy to say it a thousand times—but if British industry cannot do that then the Budget and devaluation will really be of no avail. I personally doubt whether wage restraint is the way to achieve a higher rate of production per man hour. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Robbins—and I have great respect for his views, because he is a famous economist—he is rather in favour of having an incomes policy in the public sector but not an incomes policy in the private sector. I agree with him there; but (I have also said this a hundred times; I could make this speech in my sleep, almost), if only we could do away with restrictive practices, and if only the

421
Government could give more incentives to industry, particularly to talented men and women—not only the brains, but the skilled craftsmen—I feel sure that there would be a great improvement.
The giving of these incentives would require a complete change in taxation. After all, I believe British industry is the most heavily taxed in the world. It is true that the Government give grants and subsidies, but that is only robbing Peter to pay Paul. The giving of grants and subsidies to industry is extremely costly to the economy, because it requires thousands of civil servants to administer the schemes. These civil servants, who are all well educated, come pouring out of the universities, and they would be far better employed elsewhere. They would be far better employed in a productive capacity in industry. The trouble is Socialist thinking. It is a sort of creeping paralysis—a desire to get control of British industry. Once industry accepts a grant it is rather behoven to the Government, and it is rather a case of, "Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey".
The goose that lays the golden egg, the private sector, is already rather bedraggled. We are now going to have the Industrial Expansion Bill, the Transport Bill and these various other Bills, which are all going to encroach on the private sector. They are going to cost hundreds of millions of pounds. If the Government do not change their policies, I really cannot see the Budget doing the trick. The feathers of the golden goose will become more tarnished, and the laying record will eventually be completely destroyed. Fortunately for the nation, in my opinion the Government will not have time to kill completely the goose that lays the golden egg.
I should like to mention just one aspect of cutting down on home consumption. Economists say that if you cut down on home consumption it releases more goods for export. I have had some slight experience in light industry, and of course, it is true enough—that it does release more goods. The trouble is that there is no guarantee that you can export them, because you have to fight for these markets. The theoretical economists say this, but they do not have to get the export
422
markets. You really have to fight for them. Just because you do not sell so many drawing pins, we will say, to the home market, that does not mean to say that you are going to export more drawing pins. You have to get the markets. The other danger is that if you depress your home market too much it is very difficult for companies to amass enough reserves to do research. You can go too far the other way.
I have always thought—it was the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, who mentioned this—that the Government never put sufficient emphasis on producing more goods here in order to save imports. I quite agree that we have all our trade agreements, but the agriculture industry, the most efficient industry in the country, could produce a great deal more food. We already produce two-thirds of the nation's food. The noble Lord gave the figures, and I will not repeat them; but agriculture could produce a tremendous saving in imports. The trouble is that we are largely an urban population, and if we do not import a great deal of food—food that we do not want—we cannot sell our tin buckets and so on. It is a very great problem. Only the other day we had 300,000 tons of French wheat dumped on us. It came up the Thames Estuary. The French Government, having bought it from their farmers at about £40 a ton, dump it in England at £20 a ton, and it spoils our wheat sales. It certainly spoilt mine, and it spoilt those of my friends in the area, too.
As other speakers have said, the greatest contribution that the Government can make to the recovery of our economy—and I am afraid I must add that they have also done a great deal to undermine our economy—is to cut their own expenditure. I have often harped on this subject before. The private sector of the economy and the public generally are being constantly exhorted to spend less. We are squeezed by the highest bank rate in the world. It is extremely difficult for employers. Remembering what Mr. George Brown said three years ago (what were we to have—mortgage rates of 2¾ per cent.?) it is quite incredible. The Government have set no good example at all by way of cutting their own expenditure. I pointed out in the last speech I made in this House

423
on the public expenditure cuts that these 1968 cuts of £300 million-odd have all been swallowed up by extra expenditure; and the projected extra expenditure for 1969 has now exceeded double the amount of the cuts for that year. Really, it is an impossible situation.
Several noble Lords have referred to the great rise in the numbers of the Civil Service—57,000 since the Government took office three years ago. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, said that the cost of this was an extra £65 million. In fact, the noble Viscount's figure was incorrect: the correct figure is £92 million. That is the increased cost of the Civil Service; and it is largely due, as I have already said, to the system of grants to industry, instead of giving tax allowances, and to such crazy adventures as the Land Commission. And, of course, there is S.E.T.
Let us look at the Land Commission. It employs 1,400 civil servants at a total salary of nearly £2 million a year. In the first year, it has collected only £500,000 in betterment levies; and to collect this has cost £3,200,000. If you go on like that, of course, you will have this recurring high inflation—and you need to increase the Civil Service the whole time. And for what purpose? For absolutely no purpose at all. We are now told that the Department of Economic Affairs are to produce a new plan in the autumn; they are going to increase the work of the 23 "Little Neddies". But the only purpose that will serve will be to keep perhaps a hundred or so economists busy. If those economists produce a realistic plan—and they are quite capable of doing so; I do not despise economists; I am an amateur one myself—I will hazard a guess that Labour politicians will not accept it. It will be too embarrassing for them. What I am afraid will happen is that there will be a plan produced to have more and more Government expenditure. And so we shall continue on this "Rake's Progress".
My Lords, I began by saying that I agree that the Government Budget does give a basis on which to put our affairs in order. In this connection, I am anxious to ask the Government a serious question. By this Budget, the Government are taking, quite rightly, £900 million out of the economy, out of home consumption;
424
they are easing the demand on the home market. But what I want to know is this. Can the Government be trusted not to spend this £900 million? For if they do that, the whole object of the operation is wasted. There will be no easing of the demand on the home market; the whole operation will be fruitless. Last July the Government took £500 million out of the economy. But where is it? They have spent it; it has gone back—in fact more than that has gone back, into the economy through Government expenditure.
I personally think that the only answer is to come to some agreement with the unions to honour contracts that are made with the employers and to have free bargaining between the unions and the employers. I am not saying that an incomes policy cannot be made to work; I believe that it can. But it needs a sophisticated society, and I do not think that in this country throughout all branches of industry and unions we are sophisticated enough to make this policy work. It may be possible in perhaps ten or twenty years time but I cannot see it working now. And if the Government try to force it by statutory powers then I am afraid (although perhaps I am an alarmist on this) that we may have civil strife. Fortunately, we rarely have that in this country—chiefly, I think, because of our climate. Fortunately, the rain usually comes along and saves the day.
My Lords, before I finish, I should like to say that I hope the Government will be able to make this policy work; but I doubt it. The trouble is that the present Government no longer have the full moral or political support of the people. That is the real trouble; I am afraid that the Government cannot claim to have that support. Therefore, I am very dubious whether the incomes policy will work. I can only hope it does work voluntarily; but, if it does not, then we must in the future ensure what I think is bound to happen eventually: that the unions and employers get together and have free bargaining which they will honour. As I say, I can only hope that the incomes policy will work; but I am afraid that it will not do the trick.
7.29 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I hope that it is not too late to be thoughtful about the present economic situation.

425
Personally, I can only applaud the Government's incomes and prices policy. It is clearly essential if we are not to lose the advantages of devaluation—and they are not very great advantages—that we should make any rise in incomes and prices depend on increased productivity. If we do not do that, we shall suffer another bout of inflation, with the usual results that we have come to know so well. The Government prices and incomes policy seems to me to be incredibly courageous because it involves making real incomes more or less stationary. But what else can we expect, after devaluation, at a time when our economy is not expanding very much? I think that the Government must be prepared to face great unpopularity about this. I believe that in the long run we have to face the fact that incomes policies are likely to be acceptable only in an expanding economy.
Some doubt has been expressed as to whether incomes policies can be made to work at all. I should like to express warm agreement with what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said on this subject. We did a great deal of work on this at O.E.C.D., and there is no doubt that such policies can be made to work, provided that there is not too much pressure of demand. If there is too much pressure, it is incontestable that the policies cannot be made to work. If there is not enough pressure of demand, they are not necessary. But I believe that in between those two extremes there is a grey area in which both the control of incomes and, surprisingly (to judge by Austrian and other experience) the control of prices, can be made to render a valuable service and make possible a degree of expansion which would otherwise prove impossible to maintain.
The important point, my Lords, is that we should avoid letting our economy approach too close to ceilings of manpower and production. If the approach to the ceiling of any given sort of manpower, like special fitters, becomes too near in any one region, the wages of such fitters will go up. It is like dropping a stone in a pond; waves of cost inflation go out until they spread to John o' Groats and Land's End. That is what we have to foresee and to prevent from happening. This involves two things: great foresight about manpower requirements
426
and also a larger investment, because one of our troubles in the past has been that we have not been investing enough and our productive capacity has not been expanding as it should.
Of the 21 member countries of O.E.C.D., spreading from Sweden across the whole of free Europe, the United States and Canada to Japan, the United Kingdom comes 18th in the percentage of gross national product invested. Our figure is 17·6 per cent. By comparison, Japan invests 31 per cent.; Germany, 25 per cent.; France, 21 per cent.; and Switzerland, 26 per cent. In terms of dollars invested per head of population, we compare almost equally badly. Sweden invests 630 dollars per annum; Switzerland, 660; Germany, 510; France, 450. The United Kingdom, my Lords, invests 340; and we are 14th on the list. Even a certain proportion of that is done by United States capital.
Our countrymen have made enormous and often very successful investments abroad. We have greatly added to the wealth of the world, but I wonder, quite seriously, whether the time is not coming for us to invest more at home. How else can we have the buoyant and up-to-date export industry we need? If we have not that industry and the exports, how can we afford to export capital? This exporting of capital may shortly come to a grinding halt. It is no good saying that it is a good thing and brings in a certain amount of income. Of course it does. But it does not bring in enough to justify the enormous risk we take in exporting such large quanities of capital. On the other hand, how can we expect a high investment rate at present rates of interest and with the credit squeeze here at home, even with the intelligent exceptions which we are making to the credit squeeze in favour of investments which help the balance of payments?
There are some favourable signs. The Rolls Royce contract to sell the newest jet engines in the United States is immensely encouraging and so are the new orders for ships. Both are spheres where, I should like here to note, the Government have taken action to improve the industrial structure. But we need much more success of that sort. I know that we have the technology and know how

427
and the genius to do much better if we could only organise it.
My Lords, investment is only part of the story. Our industrial relations hardly encourage any industrialist to invest in factories here, as our people of every class and type so easily "go traditional" and refuse to accept new processes. How can you do anything the "traditional" way with technology changing all the time every few years? Industrial expansion and export growth depend on innovations. But we have built up a permissive society where almost anyone who objects to an innovation can delay or prevent its introduction altogether. Just look at the rows we had, to take only recent examples, about the use of freight liner terminals, the manning of diesel trains, and the introduction of a better system in the docks. Look at the notorious waste of manpower in printing and in many other industries.
I believe that management, especially junior management, is seriously demoralised by the chaos in our labour relations. This has undermined productivity and the quality of our products, and our ability to sell them in the right places at the right times. Some people complacently say that our industrial relations are not too bad, and they can produce some statistical justification for that statement, but I urge that we have to choose between bringing about an early improvement of our system of industrial relations or seeing our country continue to decline. I stress again that this sort of internal strife and corrupting inefficiency gravely affects our exports.
You cannot imagine, my Lords, the exasperation caused in countries that I have visited in the last six months, from Sweden to the west of Canada, by our failure last year to fulfil our delivery dates and also by the poor attention we are paying to quality. "Never buy a Monday car", they say in some countries—that is, a car made on Monday. Why? Because the workers are recovering from the week-end. "Never buy a Friday car". Why? Because the quality control people go home early. These are damaging jokes, but it is time we took them seriously. I would not repeat them otherwise.
Please do not forget that the Japanese and others are sitting on the sidelines,
428
just waiting for a chance to snap into our markets. We have presented our valuable Rhodesian market on a plate to the Japanese. I think we cannot have better exports on a reliable basis until we have up-to-date industrial relations. I believe our excellent industrialists and our first-class trade union leaders deserve a better and a less archaic system to govern industrial relations; they need a system such as our main competitors have built up in the last thirty years. It will require legislation and we must tackle it as soon as we get the Report of the Royal Commission.
The seamen's strike of 1966 directly preceded the July crisis which led to many measures burdensome for our economy and to the total loss of our National Plan by which the Government set so much store. The closing of the ports of London and the Mersey for many weeks in 1967 directly preceded the devaluation of the pound. Of course other factors were involved—the Middle East war, the closure of the Suez Canal, the Vietnam war—but these internal industrial disturbances have done vast damage to our exports and to our reputation abroad. They leave nothing at all to spare for untoward events abroad, like war on the Suez Canal.
Then there is the question of capital movements, long term and short term. How can we expect people to keep their money in London, still less to invest it here, if we plainly seem to have become incapable of sorting out our troubles? Our friends overseas are very sorry for us, but they think that we must be crazy to let our exports suffer in the way we do.
It is excellent that agreement was reached at Stockholm about the Special Drawing Rights, and I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said on that subject. But let us be under no illusions: if we do not soon take measures to set right the working of our own economy—and I do not here mean just industrial relations but the economy on a wide basis—there is no system of liquidity, no level of foreign exchange reserves nor, for that matter, any exchange rate which will give us security or stability.
We have to pay our way in the world and live within our means, and that goes for public expenditure also. Otherwise there is no limit to the foreign assets we

429
shall have to sell, give away or renounce in order to preserve a sort of stability. Every fresh renunciation will be swallowed up by another bout of inflation or by constantly increasing consumption or rising imports, as it has been for the last 25 years, unless we get our industry working properly under able, well-trained leaders, both of management and of labour, with proper chains of responsibility on both sides and the power to carry those responsibilities out. As it is, I never remember a period when we have abandoned so many assets built up over generations and got virtually nothing in return.
To sum up, the Government are being brave and courageous with their incomes and prices policy, but much, much more is needed. We must protect the right to work and to produce against wanton interference, against the social and economic Wars of the Roses in which we now are living.
I should like to come back to the question of exports. How are we to get extra exports? A surplus of £500 million per annum is really a formidable requirement. The increase in the volume of our exports per annum over the years 1961 to 1966 has been only 4·2 per cent., far lower than that of any other significant member country of O.E.C.D. Successive Presidents of the Board of Trade have worked hard on this and have often expressed a certain optimism, but they have achieved no revolutionary result.
Devaluation does not give very much long-term advantage in the circumstances of this country, where two-thirds of our raw materials and so much of our food have to be imported. I think that the Government are extremely foolish to abolish the export rebates. I cannot imagine why they are doing it—as if our present predicament does not give them ample material to answer criticisms at GATT or EFTA.
In order to obtain higher exports it is not enough to discourage home demand. By the time the managing director of a given company has discovered what is really happening at home and decided where to sell abroad, sent himself or his sales director there and discovered what can be sold, recovered from eating and drinking so many queer concoctions, got home and arranged to manufacture what is needed, got sales literature translated,
430
printed and distributed abroad, found suitable agencies and customers and sold the stuff and got paid, we are usually in the next boom but one. Discouraging the home market may free resources for export, but few people who have had anything to do with export promotion on the spot would agree that such measures produce au effective expansion of export sales at short notice. We shall have to look to the longer future.
I believe that the Government need a wider approach. The expansion of exports cannot be achieved without much closer relations and co-operation between the Government and both sides of industry. I agree warmly with what has been said on this subject during this debate on both sides of the House. But if the mistrust between private industry and the Government goes on growing, I do not see how we are going to get the results we need. I suggest that the National Economic Development Council ought to be mobilised on this subject and all the "Little Neddies" as well. It should be possible to get a larger number of firms interested in exporting and to help them still more actively with common services. With all this a good start has already been made but much more activity will be required. Never let us be complacent or even optimistic again.
Japanese experience is very interesting. When the Japanese economy is doing badly their rate of expansion is just about 7 per cent. a year. When their rate of growth goes over 12 or 13 per cent. they begin to run into trouble. The last time that happened they took all the usual measures. They put up the rate of interest, restricted credit and so on, but they did one other significant thing. The Japanese Government are a large shareholder in most of the great firms, having supplied a good deal of the capital. They rang up the directors of these firms and told them they had to export more. They acted on that, and Japan came out of the red within about a year. Nobody had ever seen any great industrial country pull out of the red with the speed with which Japan did. Of course, that procedure is not applicable here, but perhaps we can learn from it.
I think that the Government should also press forward the measures they are taking to help industry form more efficient and larger units. The aircraft industry

431
and shipbuilding are interesting in this connection. The Industrial Reconstruction Corporation, I believe, have begun to do most useful work, in spite of the fears which were expressed when it was originally formed. I daresay that that can be carried forward more actively.
I hope that there is a good basis of useful ideas in the Industrial Expansion Bill. Anyway, I appeal to the Opposition to make their criticisms forward-looking and constructive and avoid opposition based merely on the fact that it involves a Government interest. I am glad to hear that there is to be a new Plan. I believe it is essential to have a National Plan. Almost all member countries of O.E.C.D. have plans or programmes, or medium or long-term policies—there are all sorts of euphemisms but substantially they are all plans. I believe it is important that our Plan should be based on the actual plans and projects of the industries and regions. We should not aim at having a rigid plan, something which restricts what industrialists can do; it should be flexible and forward-looking. It should not deal just in terms of economic aggregates, not consist just of a lot of figures. It should deal with areas and industries and men, most especially with men. It is vital to foresee what sort of people our educational and vocational training systems must produce in order to provide for the needs in each area and to see that we do not run up against the sort of pressure against ceilings of manpower—trained manpower, specialist manpower—which will cause us to run into inflation. We should link this to a modern manpower policy in association with both sides of industry.
But no one has ever succeeded in planning exports effectively. I feel that the level of Government expenditure and our general economic policy must henceforth be made dependent on success in the export field. Let us not again be misled by short or even long-term capital inflows into thinking that we can relax.
In conclusion, we are still in a very serious pass. Devaluation perhaps gives us a chance to do better, but only if the Government develop much more forward-looking policies than they have dome hitherto, both at home and abroad, and in many fields. If we go on muddling through to another crisis, we can only
432
expect another disaster, and that was emphatically not what our countrymen elected the Government for. Let the Government show even greater courage. To judge by the by-election results, they have nothing to lose by doing so, and perhaps they have everything to gain.
8.0 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, in rising at this late hour to speak finally before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, winds up, I am conscious of the high standard of this debate and perhaps of my inadequacy to make any useful contribution. However, I promise not to make up in quantity what I may lack in quality. I was, I confess, tempted to table an Amendment to the Motion, perhaps to sharpen it up somewhat; and indeed, if pressed, perhaps to force a Division. But wiser counsels prevailed, and anyway, perhaps nothing would have been achieved: judging by the attendance in the House I might not have carried the Motion.
The two principal objections to Government policy in the economic sphere must come under two headings: first, mismanagement; and, secondly, and more importantly, misrepresentation. To me, the most serious misrepresentation, and one which even the Prime Minister has repeated, on television and elsewhere, on numerous occasions, was that the present Government inherited from the Conservative Government a trade deficit of £800 million. The precise figure they put forward is, I think, £776 million; and this was the figure they bandied about when they came into power in October, 1964. The facts do not bear out that allegation. First of all, and most importantly, £374 million was overseas investment that had taken place during the year 1964, prior to the advent of the Labour Government; and, of course, capital investment of that nature is not, and should not be, added to the trade figures. If we added those figures to company accounts, we should be prosecuted and sent to prison, because it is literally against the rules.
It is perhaps useful to remember that during 1964 we received an income in this country from overseas investments of £409 million, which is substantially in excess of the overseas investment figure for that year. Of the remainder of the

433
£776 million, the £402 million, it is true that this was principally on the trade account. However, as is now well known, the Conservative Chancellor of the day, Mr. Maudling, had taken a decision to increase temporarily the inflow of raw materials—he, of course, had taken that decision in conjunction with industry—and, therefore, up to October, 1964, we had substantially increased temporarily the inflow of raw materials, preparing for the leap forward in export subsequent to October, 1964, and into 1965.
It is true, also, that fear of the possible advent of a Labour Government during the latter stages of 1964 had accelerated this influx of raw materials and the corresponding outflow of money, because it was feared, rightly or wrongly—rightly, as it proved—that the advent of the Labour Government would result in a loss of confidence, a run on sterling, and in due course import controls. I am reminded of the simple parallel of a daughter of one of your Lordships who came to you and said that she wanted to get married. Suppose that you found that her suitor had an overdraft of £800 at the bank. Would you consider the young man a spendthrift? Indeed, if you found that, say, £400 had been spent on a deposit on a house, and £350 on stocking up the larder, you might praise the young gentleman and accept him as a prospective son-in-law. I submit, therefore, that this often-repeated allegation that the present Government inherited a deficit of £800 million is hardly accurate.
If we want to seek for examples of this misrepresentation we have only to listen again to some of the ministerial broadcasts that were so frequent until the last one in January, and remember some of the remarks that were made: for example, "The pound in your pocket has not been devalued." That, perhaps will go down in history as the classic misstatement or understatement of that time. The facts are that, as a result of devaluation, prices went up, the standard of living, at best, remained level—and to be more accurate will probably go down. Indeed, the former Minister of Labour, Mr. Gunter, in a televised speech only the other day, said he felt it desirable that the standard of living should go down. I wonder whether any previous Government has called upon the people
434
to accept a reduction in their standard of living.
If we move now from misrepresentation to the other area that I mentioned, that of mismanagement, it is difficult to know where to start. We have the ludicrous selective employment tax. I was until recently in the transport industry, and we were in the ridiculous situation of paying this tax, to have it refunded in full, but without premium, subsequently. This meant, in effect, that we were making an interest-free loan to the Government. This is all very well, but it is hardly what the tax was meant to achieve. It is, of course, possible to get over difficulties of this sort by various devious but legal means, and I think that the Government will lose in the end. But it does seem incredible that the Government at this time, when they were attempting to cut back on expenditure in the public sector, should have imposed a tax which they were proposing to refund two months later.
There are many other anomalies in the Government's economic policy which have been pursued of late, and I will not dwell on them now. But to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, a moment ago, when he called for a further National Plan, we are reminded of the words of the then, I think, Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. George Brown. He said:
"We shall run the economy as she has never been run before."
And what happened to the National Plan? Within a month it was in the wastepaper basket.
8.10 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick one question. Since 1931 England has been off the gold standard, but we have always kept a large balance of gold in reserve—for what purpose I do not know. I presume it was so that, when most other countries had a reserve of gold, balance of payments could be made in gold. Now that America is reduced to a minimum, France is up to a maximum, what are we keeping this gold for? We have a tremendous foreign debt. Why do we not sell this gold, which

435
I believe is vastly in excess of £1,000 million sterling, and pay off some of our external loans?
The Government are in a difficult position. They have this big debt hanging around their necks. They want to do what they can for this country, and this seems to me an ideal way of doing this. I do not want to be dishonest about this, so if we do it I think we should announce to the world that we are not going to buy back gold in any circumstances. Gold is not a valuable asset: its only value is for manufactured purposes. I leave it to the noble Lord to reply.
8.13 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, and there have been some important speeches—some so important that I think I should not purport to answer them now. But I shall see that the points they have made are carefully studied. I know that my noble friend Lord Longford invited me to deal sharply with some of the industrialists, who have graced our debates especially when they made their chastening of the Government from this supra-political position, which they seem to think industry gives them, and claim they are being non-political about their interventions.
A NOBLE LORD: I did not claim that.
LORD BESWICK: I shall not accept the invitation of my noble friend Lord Longford, but I was rather reminded at times when the noble Lord, Lord Aiding-ton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, spoke of the absolutely delightful story in this morning's Times Business News, of the explanation by the chairman of G.K.N., of why he had given £34,651 from his company's till to the Conservative and Unionist Party. He said, "We are not concerned with politics. Our concern is business and the preservation of private enterprise."
LORD ALDINGTON: I never said that.
LORD BESWICK: I must say also that I think the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, was carried away a little by his oratory when he chastised us for refusing, as he put it, to trade with South Africa because of our political convictions. The fact is, of course, that South Africa, with our exports to her of £257 million a year, is our second-best customer.
436
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said that the Government had made psychological mistakes, and my noble friend Lord Granville of Eye spoke of the need to get a true understanding of our policy and purpose. May I say first I agree with the noble Lord that we have made psychological mistakes—not simply this Government but also their predecessor. We have, as a country, made psychological mistakes. This is an economic debate. But I believe that our national problem concerns psychology as much as economics. I believe that a national sense of purpose is as important as our balance of payments—indeed, the former may well govern the latter.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said we are faced with truly tremendous events, events which he said we cannot control. I agree with him, though possibly not quite in the sense in which he rendered his remarks. We have talked so much in the last decade about "the wind of change" in Africa that we have quite ignored the profound social changes which are seeking to take shape in the more sophisticated and industrialised continents. The Tet offensive was a moment of truth, not only for the American people but for all who have taken for granted the superiority of Western values. And how could anyone watch in recent days the march of a hundred thousand people in American cities, and the great wave of emotion there that followed the killing of a Negro preacher, without realising how deep are the problems with which we in the Western World are now confronted? And not only in the American continent: Czechoslovakia and Poland are obvious examples of social change seeking to take place elsewhere. And part of my argument this evening is that we shall not get our own situation in order until we have recognised that interpreting our difficulties in any Party sense only obscures the problem and diminishes the effort.
Neither the world at large nor our people at home, in my view, have yet understood that the task we set ourselves after the war of winding up an Empire, an honourable task, honourably executed, has meant heavy, if temporary, economic burdens. Maybe I can return to that theme in a short time, but I must try to keep within the time which the Chief Whip has allocated to me.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: You are the Chief Whip!
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, made some amusing comments about recent ministerial changes. Let me admit straight away that I agree that we have not up to date achieved the right set-up in the Government Departments to match the needs of the modern economy. What I do claim is that it would have been far worse to have left things as they were—on the Tory philosophy; and I further claim that the evolution taking place is bringing us nearer to the right set-up.
I am certain that the approach of my right honourable friend Mrs. Castle to an incomes policy is the right one. I am sure that it has to be presented as a positive policy; I am sure that the accent has to he on increased productivity. I believe that in her new post as Minister for Employment and Productivity she will he able to make a real contribution, through effective use and encouragement of manpower, to increasing the national product, and I am particularly delighted about all this when I hear this evening that we have, however inadvertently, adopted the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, had his doubts about a statutory control of prices and incomes. Of course a voluntary control would be better. If it did not lead to abuse by a minority, our emphasis would be on voluntary co-operation. But to ensure fair play all round, reserve powers are, I suggest, absolutely essential. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, also has doubts about Government interventions in industry. We shall have opportunities to discuss this in the near future on the Industrial Expansion Bill, but in the meantime I cannot think that he really believes that all intervention is bad. Intervention in the aero-engine industry by way of development contracts and the recent Rolls Royce successes are, in part, a result.
LORD ALDINGTON: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to mislead the House as to what I said. I started what I had to say about intervention in industry by saying that of course we understand that, for example,
438
the Government have regulated and intervened. I then went on to deal with various ways in which I thought they were doing wrong now, and various things I thought they ought to do right.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the, noble Lord seems to be bearing me out when I say I cannot believe that he regards all intervention as being bad. The noble Lord has found a way to intervene when it is on behalf of the Conservative Party. What I am saying is we have intervened in industrial matters, and in many cases with success. I would say the intervention by way of development subsidies in the aero-engine industry has led to the recent Rolls-Royce successes; intervention in shipbuilding seems to be paying off, and similarly with computers, and many other examples could be given.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked whether profit investment in the expansion of industry, especially that geared to export or import saving, is increasing, and whether it has increased sufficiently. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, was making the same point. I would first draw attention to the fact that, contrary to experience in some previous periods when we have had slow growth in the economy, industrial investment did not fall very sharply last year. Moreover, and more to the point, the Board of Trade investments intentions inquiry at the end of last year indicated that, even before devaluation, very substantial increases in industrial and commercial investment were being planned for this year. Our expectation is that this increase in investment, allied with the expansion of exports that we look forward to with the added advantage which devaluation gives to the manufacturing industry, will give rise to kind of investment which the noble Lord has in mind, and it will continue to rise quickly in 1969.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and I believe others, urged the reading o Professor Paish's article. I must say that I have read it, and it obviously—it is almost temerity on my part to say so—repays study. The two noble Lords, and Lord Robbins, in a characteristically weighty speech, emphasised the importance of demand management. Where I think they were not quite clear was in not calling attention to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the

439
Exchequer had said in his Budget speech. He really accepted the point which was being made, notwithstanding the severity of the Budget in cutting back private consumption. We admit that there is always a risk that overall demand on national resources will grow excessively. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged this risk in his Budget speech. He noted that the cuts announced by the Prime Minister on January 16 last would involve a sharp slowing down in the growth of public expenditure in the period ahead. He went on to emphasise that the Government intended to ensure that the claims of the public sector were compatible with the total resources available as compared with the other calls upon them; and that the fulfilment of this objective would be the basic task of this year's review of public expenditure.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I had no intention at all of criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this connection. I only wished to strengthen him in praise.
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged. I believe I am being unfair in this context. I had put the noble Lord's name together with that of Lord Aldington.
LORD ALDINGTON: I associate myself with what my noble friend said.
LORD BESWICK: My noble friend Lady Plummer advocated the opportunities presented by agriculture for import saving, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, in a speech which I regret I did not hear; but my noble friend the Leader of the House tells me it was a most interesting speech, and one with which he thought I should be greatly in agreement. I will certainly read what he had to say, and, as he knows, I am as keen as he is that there should be the maximum use of agriculture for import saving. The noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, went on to speak of the activities of the British Agriculture Export Council, of which she is a very active member, and she was suggesting that more could be done to help them to help us in this matter of import saving. I can say that the question of partial financial support to afford additional impetus to B.A.E.C.'s activities is being closely examined.
440
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, emphasised the need for an honest monetary system. I agree with him completely, that if we are to reward properly those who labour by hand or brain, and if we are to give an adequate return to those who save a proportion of what they earn, then we need to have a currency which we can trust. But I think I have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who questioned me earlier to-day, when I say that not only do we want an honest monetary system, but we want a rational system; and I think that this is the point Lord Nunburnholme was making before I rose.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and Lord Dundee, at Question Time, asked me about the efforts that were made at Washington and Stockholm to get nearer to a rational monetary system. At Washington the seven active participants in the former London Gold Pool agreed to the following propositions. They agreed to the so-called two-tier system, under which they no longer supply gold to any free market; they agreed that they should no longer feel it necessary to buy gold from the market, and they agreed that they do not in future sell gold to monetary authorities to replace gold sold by those authorities to the market. I hope this goes some way to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme. The Washington Conference also supported United States Government policy of buying and selling gold at the existing price of 35 dollars an ounce in transactions with monetary authorities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on March 18 that he believed this two-tier system would restore stability, at least for a considerable time, and certainly events since then, including the price of gold in the free market, have justified his statement. But, of course, all this does not go far enough. At Stockholm the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the Group of Ten had as their main task to agree on the amendment to the articles of agreement of the I.M.F. which are needed to establish the scheme for Special Drawing Rights which was agreed to in outline at Rio de Janeiro last September. On this, of course, one country, France, abstained.
It might be useful if I spelt out a little more something of the nature of these Special Drawing Rights, or the S.D.R.s as they are coming to be called, rather

441
awkwardly I think. They are a new kind of asset, and some misunderstanding exists about them. They will be created and distributed by the I.M.F. without any deposit of gold or currencies in a Central Pool. In this respect they contrast with existing I.M.F. drawing rights. When a country uses its S.D.R.s it will do so by transferring them in the books of the I.M.F. to another country, which will be obliged to supply its own or another currency in exchange. Despite their title, the S.D.R.s will assume a character of transferable assets. Although it will not be possible to touch them or see them or handle them, any more than the speculators see or touch the gold which they buy and sell, they nevertheless will be an identifiable and an additional part of the world's liquidity. The Special Drawing Rights will supplement gold and reserve currencies, and not supplant them, at any rate in the near future.
Final details of the proposed amendments to the articles are now being discussed in Washington. Then the Governors of the Fund will be asked to vote on them, and they must be accepted, as I said earlier this afternoon, by three-fifths of the members having four-fifths of the total voting power. This scheme, of course, cannot solve all the problems of international liquidity, but it offers a more rational and hopeful system subject to genuine international agreement and control. I cannot give the House any firm estimate when the first creation of liquidity under the scheme is likely to take place, but if conditions are right it will probably be some time in 1969. I am sure that we shall all hope that conditions will in fact be right.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, asked—and I thought very reasonably—what has gone wrong with our economy? Why have we had this experience, so different from our hopes in 1964? I have tried myself honestly to identify the mistakes made by the Labour Government since we came to power in 1964. I agree with Lord Longford that there was one big mistake which we made as a Government and as a Party, but which we certainly shared with previous Governments and with other Parties of the State. I believe we over-estimated the economic resources available to us
442
in the 'sixties and we under-estimated the economic consequences of winding up an Empire—and here I return to the theme with which I started. Of course there was that formidable deficit left to us by the previous Conservative Government, and of course they could and would have cut it down had an election not been impending, but in my view one major reason why that balance-of-payments problem still eludes us is that have never counted the cost of this exit from Imperialism. Catching up with our trade deficit meant material sacrifices which, up to now, no Government has called for.
I recall in 1946 arguing for the idea of a co-operative oil consortium for the Middle East. The officials argued back that the plan was all idealism. At that time our arrangements with the oil producing countries were mostly on a 70–30 basis, we taking the 70 per cent. Since then we have seen it change: 60–40, 50–50, 40–60, and since Abadan I believe we have lost some concessions altogether. The world is different since the Royal Navy used to rule the seas. It used to be said that colonies opened areas to economic exploitation by the imperialist masters. Whatever truth there is in that old political argument it does not apply to-day. We have, for example, invested large sums of money in Nigeria, to their ultimate benefit and ours I hope; but for the time being most of the benefits are denied to the Nigerians and to us. And the inter-tribal conflict again is part, temporary we hope and expect, of this transitional post-colonial period. On the other side of Africa, in Tanzania, British companies are nationalised and compensation has still for the most part to be settled. Further South in Africa is this confrontation in Rhodesia; whilst we cannot compromise on principle—and I have argued often across the Floor of this House—again we have to accept that the economic cost is considerable. The Suez Canal, always open in the days of British Imperialism, is again closed, with the inevitable ensuing expense. East of Suez our old trading patterns have been upset. Maybe we could have done more to keep up something nearer the old trading proportions if we had not, under successive Governments, concentrated so much on Europe, but certainly our old position has gone.

443
I say all this not as an excuse but as an indication of the depth of the challenge. Under this Government we have seriously faced the job of making the necessary readjustments in our world position. Some military bases are closed and others due to be contracted. There will be savings; but this year and next the emphasis seems to be not on the economics but on the compensation payments.
Not only in our overseas relations have these basic readjustments to be made. We must face and we are facing the task of restructuring our economy at home. The action now being taken will pay off, but not always immediately. Greater efficiency in the docks is essential, but eventual automation inevitably creates immediate unrest. The move from coal to newer power sources will improve our position, but in the short term it means redundancy and compensation payments. Shipbuilding is being reorganised; large capital sums and some social dislocation preface the beneficial results. The merger between B.M.H. and Leyland, and between G.E.C. and A.E.I. are again part of this massive and potentially profitable restructuring. This important move towards more efficient units can be seen elsewhere, in the computer industry, in the banking and insurance worlds, and in the cotton and wool industries. Not all mergers are beneficial, and reorganisation of itself does not ensure efficiency, but basic restructuring of British industry is an essential condition of future competitiveness.
In the short run we tend not to see the economic benefits but only the protest marches, the complaints about actual or anticipated redundancies, and opportunities for political point making. So far as we are concerned there are also the disasters at by-elections. Still, we have to face these things and we have to go through with them. I am asking that the courage and resource which the present British Government are showing in these matters should be acknowledged. I believe that if we were to acknowledge that courage—acknowledge it frankly—we should get better support from our people and an earlier and better solution to the problems which face our nation.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord,
444
Lord Beswick, quite answered my question. We have—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I understand that the noble Lord has spoken once and it is most unusual to start asking questions at this moment. The noble Lord had better frame it pretty neatly as a question or the House will not take it.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I apologise, my Lords. What I am trying to say is that we are paying double interest—interest on the money that is in gold in the Bank of England and in some foreign loans abroad. Why do we not pay off—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
8.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, on the Motion, That this Bill be now read a third time, notwithstanding that these Benches are not at this moment at the pinnacle of popularity in the House, I should like to say a word in addition to what was said yesterday. As was said yesterday, it is less than 48 hours since the Report stage of this Bill was concluded in this House, and we are now asked to take the Third Reading. The Government must have been aware at 11 o'clock last Monday evening that they had it in mind to put down the Third Reading for this evening. The Clerk of the Parliaments must have been informed of this, for it was put down on the Order Paper which appeared yesterday morning that it was proposed to take the Third Reading this evening. Why was the House not told on Monday evening that within 48 hours of the Report stage it was to be asked to take the Third Reading? Why was the House not informed that in accordance with Standing Order No. 43 any Amendments on Third Reading would have to be put down

445
within 24 hours?—because, of course, Amendments in manuscript are not allowed on Third Reading and 24 hours notice has to be given. Whether this was an act of discourtesy to the House on the part of Her Majesty's Government I do not propose to discuss, because I think it is a matter perhaps more serious than discourtesy.
I am suggesting that the House was treated by Her Majesty's Government with something less than frankness in not being informed 48 hours ago that it was proposed to take the Third Reading this evening. In the exchange yesterday afternoon on future business between the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the House concluded with the following sentence:
"We are following this procedure not merely for the convenience of another place but for the convenience of Parliament as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 172, 9/4/68.]
I am all in favour of the convenience of Parliament, but I am even more strongly in favour of considering the convenience of people outside Parliament, and I think that if Parliament considered their convenience rather more than we sometimes do we should stand higher in the estimation of the people outside. Surely one of the purposes of spacing out the stages of Bills is that experts outside Parliament in the particular field shall have a proper opportunity of watching the progress of the Bill at each successive stage in Parliament and coming forward with their advice as to how the Bill can be improved upon stage by stage.
I should have thought that the advice of lawyers outside Parliament, and, in particular, the academic lawyers in the universities, was to be welcomed and they were to be encouraged to watch the progress, stage by stage, of a Bill like this Theft Bill. But what happened? Because Her Majesty's Government had not even arranged for the complete official report of the Report stage of last Monday to appear in the Hansard of that day, and because part of it did not appear until the Hansard had arrived at the Printed Paper Office this morning, those persons who receive their Hansard by post will receive the complete report of last Monday's Report stage to-morrow morning. What help is that to them if they were to have ideas for the Third Reading
446
debate, to find, as they will when they read that Hansard, that the Third Reading debate is all over?
I believe that the convenience of people outside Parliament demands that this Motion be withdrawn this evening and that the Third Reading of this Bill be taken one Parliamentary day late, on the day when we return after the Easter Recess. If that arrangement cannot be taken in its stride by another place, then I do not know another place as well as I thought I did. This would, at any rate, encourage experts outside Parliament to feel that their following of Parliamentary proceedings was worth while, and that they were not being ignored by some steamroller operated purely for Parliamentary convenience. I urge Her Majesty's Government this evening to say that they will withdraw this Motion for Third Reading and will put forward the Motion for the Third Reading on the day we return after the Recess.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 10 [Removal of articles from places open to the public]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "mentioned in that subsection". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment to Clause 10. We discussed this particular point on Report stage. It is in relation to the new clause dealing with the removal of articles from places open to the public. On Report I moved an Amendment to draw attention to the fact that the protection given to houses open to the public was really vitiated by the requirement that there could be no successful prosecution under this clause without its being proved that the removal of an article from that house (a prosecution which might have taken place six months later after someone had visited it) was by reason of "the use of some opportunity or information obtained by visiting the building as a member of the public admitted for the purpose". As the Bill stood, if something was taken from a country house open to the public a conviction could not be obtained for the offence created by this clause unless it could be proved that the thing was removed in consequence of

447
the use of some opportunity or information obtained by visiting the building, and to my mind that completely vitiates the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, indicated that he was a little troubled about making this clause too wide, applying to too many houses, and getting too near the case for which I have argued, the removal of the word "permanently". If I may suggest it to him, I suggest that he might look at the conditions which are laid down in relation to opening of country houses. I think that under some regulations they have to be open a certain number of times in the course of the year, and I would suggest to the noble Lord for consideration—I do not want an answer now—that that might be a much better test than imposing this burden on the prosecution, which the prosecution would not, I think, be able to discharge.
I should like to say one further thing about this Amendment. I raised this question on Report. I was shocked and staggered to hear my noble friend Lord Conesford claim the credit for this Amendment in the course of our discussion yesterday. I always like to give my noble friend the utmost possible credit; I always have since we were in Chambers together. But I thought yesterday that his claim was a bit much. I think it is a bit much now. If he wants the credit of it, by all means let him have it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 34.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I had no idea that my noble and learned friend was going to say this, but I thought it prudent to be here to watch him. I would remind my noble and learned friend, whose diligence throughout the proceedings on this Bill I very much admire, that when he had moved his Amendment on Report stage my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross pointed out that the acceptance of his Amendment would make the clause in every respect more useless than it was already. I thereupon suggested that, while my noble friend had been quite right in proposing to strike out what he proposed to strike out, he did not propose to strike out nearly enough, and I
448
thought that the correct Amendment was the one which he has now moved. I most gratefully acknowledge everything that my noble and learned friend has done in the course of this Bill, but this particular Amendment happens to be mine and not his.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, since this Amendment, if accepted, will, I think, be the 35th Amendment to this Bill which Her Majesty's Government will either have moved or will have accepted, I hope this finally disposes of the proposition that was put forward to us at the beginning of the Committee stage, not once but over and over again, that because 17 lawyers of such distinction had sat upon this matter for so long it was unlikely that Parliament would be able to come forward with any worthwhile Amendments to it.
As to the Amendment, may I say this. I hope that if this clause is being looked at again the opportunity will be taken to make the quite small drafting Amendment necessary to ensure that if something is taken from the garden or the grounds of a building, that is to say, if a statue is taken from a garden, the protection of that statue under this clause will not depend, as it does now, in the way that the clause is drafted, upon whether the public have access to the building as well as to the garden. In my submission, it would be absurd to have that arrangement whereby the garden is protected provided that the public have access to the house, but that if they have access only to the garden, as in many cases they do, then the garden is not protected under the clause. It needs only a small drafting Amendment to achieve this purpose, and I hope that the opportunity will be taken to achieve it.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will not expect me to intervene in the dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and his noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, as to the authorship of this particular Amendment. It may be that there is a dispute as to who should draw the commission on it—I do not know. I can only say that I personally forgo any claim. But it is on record that the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, drafting on his feet, did in fact suggest what we are now proposing to insert.

449
I think that there is general agreement that the clause in its present form is a substantial improvement both on the clause in the original Bill and on the truncated clause which we were considering at the Report stage. But I realise and accept that, unless the article is taken from a permanent exhibition, the clause as it now stands depends on proof that the temporary taking was done by the use of some opportunity or information obtained by visiting the building as a member of the public, and that many noble Lords still feel that this requirement is unsatisfactory and will greatly reduce the value of the provision. The Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, would remove the requirement.
As I explained at the Report stage, the requirement in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the clause was included to try to set some limit to the circumstances in which a place which was only occasionally or periodically open to the public was protected. But, my Lords, the Government intend thoroughly to examine the whole clause to see if we can find a way to remove or relax the requirement in paragraph (a) while at the same time not opening up the clause too widely; and since we intend to do that, I am prepared to advise the House to accept the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment. I want to make it clear that we do not think that the clause as then amended would necessarily be right. I think it would probably go too far. I think there is general agreement on that.
We may be able to do it in several ways, and I will certainly consider the suggestion which the noble and learned Viscount has made. That is one way. I would not comment on it now, except to say that it may be thought by some to be too restrictive. There may be more than one way, and we shall explore them all. But it may be, in the last analysis, that we shall fail to find any more satisfactory form for the clause than the form in which it now stands. It may be that we shall be obliged in another place to seek to reverse the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount would now make and which I now advise your Lordships to accept. If that should happen, the Amendment we now hope to make would at least ensure your Lordships an
450
opportunity to consider the whole clause again at a later stage. I am, in short, prepared to accept the Amendment as an earnest of our good intentions—indeed a guarantee of them, if such be needed—recognising that more work will have to be done on the clause in another place before we get it right.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked me to make sure, when we look at the clause again, that it covers the case where something is taken from the grounds of a building it the grounds are open to the public and the building is not. Having regard to what he said on the Motion, That the Bill be now read a third time, I would make this comment. When he was in my office at the Home Office yesterday afternoon, and we discussed the Bill, I understood that this was the only point outstanding. I did not know then that he was proposing to raise the objections which he has raised to-night. I give the noble Lord the assurance which I then gave him, that we will certainly consider the point about the gardens and try to meet it—again subject to the need, as we see it, not to make the clause unnecessarily and undesirably wide. I hope that with what I have said your Lordships will agree that the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Viscount will meet the present position and that the House will accept it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for so gracefully accepting the last Amendment that I have to move on this Bill, and for what he has said about it. I quite understand that he will look for other solutions of the problem, and I shall understand, but regret it, if the result of that investigation means that he tries to reinstate these words. I hope that he will find a better solution. But I am grateful to him, and entirely understand the basis on which he accepts it.
May I conclude by thanking my noble-friend Lord Conesford for so satisfactorily drafting the last Amendment that I moved. May I say that I hope in future, whether on his feet or sitting down, he will undertake to draft other Amendments for me equally satisfactorily?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.57 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I think we were all agreed about two things when we began our consideration of this Bill on February 15: first, that it raised nothing which could, in any sense, be regarded as a Party matter; and second, that our common concern was to see that it left this House as good a Bill as we could make it. Let me say at once that if we have been able to make some improvements in it, nothing that we have done can detract from the splendid foundation laid for us by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in their painstaking and thorough inquiry, and in presenting us with a draft Bill.
It would be idle to suppose that any Committee could produce a Bill on a subject such as this—or, indeed, on any subject—with all of which everyone would agree. To me, therefore, it is less remarkable that we have made some changes in the Bill which the Committee produced than that the essentials of it—in particular, its new concept of theft—have stood up so well to the searching scrutiny which the House has given them. I know that the Chairman of the Committee, Sir Frederic Sellers, has come here many times in person to follow our debates, and I think that we should all wish to pay to him and his colleagues a tribute for the giant stride in the improvement of the criminal law which their endeavours have made possible.
We have spent many hours on the Bill, but I do not think a minute has been wasted. The Government have at all times been open to suggestions and many helpful ones have been made. As a result, in some places, such as what is now Clause 14, we have made quite substantial alterations and in the new Clause 15 have what will be found, I believe, to be a useful provision. In other cases, the Government have, I believe rightly, dug in their toes, and on one or two occasions I may even have been able to persuade noble Lords that I was right and they were wrong. I have been anxious at all times to serve the House, and will not now do it the disservice of speaking at length. But I should like to perform the best last service I can do for the House before the Bill goes to another place by surveying briefly the
452
issues on it which are outstanding when it leaves us.
First, the Government will have to consider the position created by the deletion from the Bill at the Report stage of what was then Clause 6. When, at the Report stage, I moved some Manuscript Amendments which were consequential on that deletion the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said:
"I understand this means that the noble Lord will not seek at a later stage to reintroduce Clause 6 in the form which has now been excised. Does that also mean—I hope it does not—that he is not giving consideration to an entirely different wording to carry out the intentions which he said lay behind Clause 6? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/4/68; col. 114].
As I explained then, the immediate purpose of the consequential Amendments was simply to clean up the Bill. Your Lordships would not have wished the Bill to go forward with a reference in it to a clause which no longer existed. But I was interested to learn from the noble and learned Viscount's remarks, if I understood them correctly, that he saw a need at least to consider whether the Bill should contain something to meet the intentions, as I had explained them, of the clause, even though he so greatly disliked the clause in the form in which we put it forward.
Certainly we shall be taking stock of the situation created by the deletion of Clause 6 and considering what, if anything, we ought to propose in another place to fill the gap. As I explained at the Report stage, it would not be easy to give effect to our intentions in any different form, but we shall consider most carefully what can be done. I cannot to-night be more specific than that. Then there is Clause 10, the Goya Clause, which we have already discussed on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I repeat the assurance I gave then that we shall most carefully consider all that has been said about the clause, including the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
One of the most important clauses in the Bill is Clause 20—Blackmail—to which my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill eloquently moved an Amendment proposing that the test of the reasonableness of using a threat should be an objective test. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor

453
explained why, as at present advised, the Government found that approach unacceptable but he added (col. 135):
"However, in view of the cogent argument which has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill I will see that exactly what he has said is considered.…"
He went on to say, specifically, that he would seek the views of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. I am glad to repeat that undertaking.
Finally, may I refer very briefly to some of the more detailed points raised at the Report stage? The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, moved Amendments to delete from subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 5 words dealing with what is "an intention to deprive" which he thought to be out of place in a clause dealing with the meaning of "belonging to another"; and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook to consider again whether it would be more appropriate to have those provisions in some other place in the Bill. That will be done. On Clause 8—Burglary—I will, as I said, look carefully to see whether, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, suggested, there is a gap which we could fill, without making the offence too wide, in cases where a person trespasses in a building and commits malicious damage there although it is not his intent to do so when he enters. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, also had a drafting point about the words which were added to subsection (3) of the clause—he thought that the reference should he to "any person having a habitation", not to "the person"—and I shall be looking at that, too.
Last, but not least, may I repeat the assurance which I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that we shall look closely into all the repeals proposed by the Bill, having regard to the changes made to it—in particular, to the original Clause 15—Criminal deception—which is now Clause 14, to make sure that the repeals are still desirable and that we shall not, by making them, leave any undesirable gaps in the law. Finally, may I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their constant kindness to me and their cooperation whilst I have endeavoured to discharge an exacting, absorbing, task
454
which I count myself privileged to have been asked to carry out. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Stonham.)
9.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, even though I may have spoken for over four hours on this Bill—and I do not know who spent the time adding it all up—I hope the House will forgive me if I spend a few minutes on the final stage of this Bill. It would not be right to treat this stage as a mere formality. It is a very important Bill, and the long and detailed consideration which we have given to it has, I believe, been fully justified; and I gather from what a e noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said that he entirely agrees.
My mind goes back to the second day of Committee so long ago as March 7, when the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, thought he would have a little fun at my expense or be rather sarcastic about me. He then said, if I may remind hint, in column 1496:
"Here I must say that 1 admire very much the courage of the noble and learned Viscount in putting down 25 Amendments to this Bill."
He then went on to say something which I am sure none of us who have taken part in the debates on this Bill will ever forget:
"The Bill was drafted by 17 of the best-known judges and academic lawyers … They spent nine years on this subject."
The noble and learned Lord then went on to say:
"… I should have thought it is a brave thing to say that on 25 different Amendments: 'I know better than they'. They thought about every word."
What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor really meant was that it was an infernal cheek on my part to think of tabling Amendments to a Bill sponsored by such eminent persons. But what in fact has happened? I tabled only 25 Amendments in Committee and drew upon myself that rebuke. The Government on Report have tabled no fewer than 35 Amendments to meet points raised in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, who also rebuked me on the same lines, found it necessary to table three Amendments, all of which the Government have accepted. To adopt

455
the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am glad that the Government have had the courage and been brave enough to make these Amendments, despite the parentage of the Bill. I am glad, too, that our efforts convinced them that this Bill was capable of improvement.
There is a phrase I well recollect which was constantly used by the late Lord Winterton in another place, when something rather harsh or sarcastic was said. He used to say, "They were very wounding words". If he had been in this House at this time, I think he would have said the same about what was said on the second day of the Committee. But I am not asking for an apology. To use words which I can adapt from this Bill, I am no sensitive plant, wild or otherwise. But I hope that the noble and learned Lord will recognise and admit that our discussions have not been wasteful, but fruitful; and that they have resulted, as I think they have, in really major improvements to this Bill.
Although our discussions have been long, I am sure that from this side of the House there has been no attempt to filibuster. The points have been many and difficult. I think it was the Leader of the House who drew attention to the fact that there had been disagreement among lawyers on many of the provisions. That is a mere indication of the difficulty of some of the points involved. I must confess that I wish the Government had had the courage—perhaps I had better not use that word again—to go a little further.
I regret that the word "permanently" was re-inserted in the definition of "theft", by a small majority on a Division at a very late hour. I do not propose to debate that again now, but I believe that the time will come when it will be recognised that to make dishonest appropriation of another's property a criminal offence is a desirable change in the law. It would certainly simplify it. You could, if you wished, keep the definition of "theft" as it is, and make dishonest appropriation a separate offence as the Romans did. I was not impressed by the argument so frequently advanced that trivial cases would be covered, for they are covered by the present definition of "theft". The youth who steals a few
456
apples from an orchard will be liable to conviction for that offence.
I believe that one of the major difficulties in relation to this Bill—it is not the fault of the Criminal Law Revision Committee; I do not criticise them about this—is the fact that they were not asked to consider forgery at the same time as they considered larceny. With the benefit of hindsight—and I do not criticise the Government about this—I think a much better job would have been done if they had been asked to do so. If they had the law relating to forgery, to theft and the other offences created in this Bill, under consideration at the same time, I am sure they would have fitted them all together, and that there would be no gaps and discrepancies. Now I rather fear that there are likely to be discrepancies between the law as it will be in this Bill and the law relating to forgery.
One question which I should like to ask even at this late hour, and I should be very grateful if I could get the answer to it, is this. Who is going to tackle the reform of the law relating to forgery? Is it going to be the Criminal Law Revision Committee or the Law Commission? If it is going to be the latter, I ask this: Has the Law Commission at any time been asked for their views on this Bill? If not, should they not be asked? I hope there is no reluctance on the part of the Home Office to consult the Law Commission. I am sure there is none on the part of the Lord Chancellor.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has indicated, there are a number of points which the Government have promised to consider; a number of questions on which there is doubt and disagreement even among lawyers about what is the right answer. I suggest in all seriousness: would it not be worth while getting the views of the Law Commission on these points, and getting their views before the Bill is finally enacted? Take, for example, the blackmail clause. Very real concern is felt about that clause, and there was a great division of opinion. Your Lordships will remember an eloquent speech by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, to the effect that if a person believed that the means he used to enforce his demands were proper he should not be convicted of that offence, even though

457
everyone else thought that they were grossly improper. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor supported that view. I of course, had no opportunity then of saying anything about it. But the logical conclusion of that argument would seem to me to be that no one should be convicted of dangerous driving, if he himself believed that he was driving safely. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that he will consult the Law Commission about this matter.
If it is the case that the Law Commission are going to deal with the law of forgery, may I even now ask one further question? Will they be free to recommend changes in this Bill so as to make the law of theft and the law of forgery fit into one coherent whole, or will they have to base their recommendations as to forgery on the assumption that no changes can be made in the law as expressed in this Bill? That, I think, is an important question and a serious one, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me an answer.
By the very nature of our procedure our debates on a Bill are not taken up in pointing out its merits and the good things that it does, but in drawing attention to its defects. I should not like it to be thought that I do not recognise that this Bill has many good points. It has; but I must confess that I cannot share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it is a great stride forward in the improvement of our law. I must confess that when I first read the Bill I was very disappointed. I thought that a great chance to simplify and clarify our criminal law had been missed. I have done my best to draw attention to what I think are its defects. I have not attempted to redraft the whole Bill, although I know an attempt has been made to do so in order to get more clarity and simplicity.
My Lords, I have spoken a great deal. I did not realise, as I say, that it was over four hours, but I hope I did not weary your Lordships unduly. I think everyone will agree that it is a better Bill now. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has indicated, there are still matters under consideration, and I would say that the Bill is still capable of improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made particular reference to Clause 6. It seemed to me that there was a wide
458
gap between what he said were the intentions of that clause and the language used to carry them out. I think he will find it very difficult to carry out his intentions in such a way that the clause is not so wide as to include a lot of other matters which he does not want included. That, no doubt, will be looked at. When he is looking at that, perhaps 1 e would also look at something which I did not raise on Report. It concerns the definition of "gain". In Clause 33 it says:
"'gain' includes a gain by keeping what one has …".
That may be entirely appropriate when one is having dealings with the inland Revenue, but I doubt whether it is really an accurate description of what is meant by a "gain".
My Lords, I feel that if we had had more time, and if there had been more time between the different stages, we should possibly have been able to effect even greater improvements. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, referred a little earlier to a steamroller. I feel rather rolled upon. After all, we have had very little interval between the various stages. It was a short interval between the end of the Committee Stage and Report; our days on Report followed in quick succession, as did our days at Committee; and now here we are seeing the final stage. Perhaps, even at this late hour, I may remind your Lordships of an eloquent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on March 5. He said that this Bill,
"which affects the liberties of such a very large section of the community ought not to be pushed forward in this hurried way … a great deal of damage can be dane in the very last stages if, in an understandable anxiety to get the Bill on to the Statute Book, … too much urgency is shown and the work which ought to be done very carefully and, I think, with a measure of slowness is pushed through late in the evening on a number of rather latish sittings".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/3/68, col. 1294.]
We have certainly had those. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that if more time was needed then more would be provided. I think that if we had been given more time it might in the end have led to less time being occupied in debate. As I have said before, no one has tried to hold up this Bill.
In conclusion, I should like to express my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has borne the burden

459
on the Government Front Bench, on piloting this Bill through this House, and my thanks to him and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the careful consideration that they have jointly and severally given to the various points that I have raised—and I thank them most sincerely for meeting so many of them. This Bill leaves the House a better Bill. I do not think our time has been wasted; I do not think we have wasted time. I hope that it will be further improved in another place.
9.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I wish to add just a word or two to what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said. Despite the improvements made in this Bill, I think that it may be some time in July before we see it back from another place; and, while I join in the congratulations expressed by my noble and learned friend to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and, indeed, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I hope they will not allow the details of it to slip from their minds; for I fancy that we shall have further discussion on it then.
I am glad to have heard the catalogue of matters still for discussion, and particularly the points about repeal. This is particularly important. I have stressed this on several occasions—chiefly I think on the Committee stage—and, of course, it ties up closely with what my noble and learned friend said about forgery; because there is in fact a great correlation between the type of crime dealt with in this Bill and forgery, which is not. There is the added complication that since the Criminal Law Revision Committee started to consider what "defraud" was meant to mean, in terms of the old Acts in relation to theft and allied offences, that term has undergone a complete change in the realm of forgery. Furthermore, it has a different meaning in "conspiracy to defraud".
There was a great deal of virtue in what my noble friend said about coordination in the consideration of this Bill and in the consideration which is to come about the next part of the code, if it is the next part of the code, on forgery.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount to tell him—and this is in answer to the noble and learned Viscount's question—that the Law Commission will examine the law of forgery?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that that will, perhaps, be the next Bill that we have before your Lordships' House. If this is the first part of the code, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not be put off by the reception it has had. There have been criticisms, but of course I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stonham, said about the virtue of the Report produced by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I have no doubt that the Law Commission will be equally virtuous in making their Report. There is a relative difficulty about how comprehensive one should be, about how far one should go. This is not only applied, as it were, geographically, so far as the criminal law is concerned: but also in terms of how far one should go in making changes of substance. I think it is here that there have been a number of disagreements, as much as about the geographical territory covered.
There is one last thing that I should like to say: it relates to something which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I, certainly, have been assisted by people outside this House who have taken the trouble to study this matter in considerable detail and have put forward substantial and most helpful comments to assist me. Clause 15, as it used to be (it is now Clause 14), the criminal deception clause, was considered by a number of those expert in criminal law to represent a very substantial and very important change. The present form of Clauses 14 and 15 really only emerged last week. I do not think there has yet been an opportunity for people outside this House to study them, and I hope the Government will bear that fact in mind.
Those clauses—particularly Clause 15, (as it now is) dealing with pecuniary advantage—I regard as being the most important step forward. My opinion is by no means infallible on this; there may be others who think the clause has failings which ought to be put right. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, and these new clauses between Clauses 10

461
and 15 are considered the Government will remain as open to constructive criticism as they have been on other matters. I hope they will not necessarily stick to the words at present in the Bill. I believe that there will be an opportunity for further improvement of this Bill, and that, of course, is what everybody is engaged upon doing. With those words I join in speeding this Bill to another place until the next time when we see an old friend.
9.25 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I say a word or two? First, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for having mentioned a small Amendment which I had suggested on Report stage and for saying that this may have sympathetic consideration; particularly because this was an Amendment which I forgot to put down and so I threw the substance of it at the unfortunate noble Lord without notice. I do not think I really deserved to have this further consideration and I am all the more grateful, therefore, that it is going to be considered.
May I explain to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that although I did not inform him of my intention to say what I said a little time ago on the Motion for the Third Reading I did inform the Government Chief Whip and the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who was kind enough to have a discussion with me about it before the business was called. I know how busy Ministers are, and this was a matter purely about the arrangement of Government business. I felt sure that it was not a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself was concerned with. That was the reason I did not badger him with it as well. I meant no discourtesy to him; indeed, I have been filled with admiration for the courtesy and industry and patience shown by both Ministers who have borne the burden of piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House. In conclusion, may I say to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that I hope that the 17 very distinguished lawyers may think the Bill has been improved, now that it has been put through the mill by your Lordships.
9.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I intervene only because earlier the noble Lord suggested that there had been a lack
462
of candour on the part of the Government. Now that compliments are flowing, rightly, to my noble friend Lord Stonham, I am not sure that his barbs are not aimed at me. I will not follow the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in a further statistical investigation as to the number of hours he speaks in your Lordships' House; he has certainly put up the general performance of Law Lords or ex-Law Lords in a special statistical study which I have shown him. We have appreciated this work and the work that his noble friend Lord Conesford gives in support of him.
I must make clear, my Lords, that it was blindingly obvious to me that the Government wished to have this Bill, in the general interest, as I said, of Parliament and of ensuring that it got off to a good start in another place. By passing it now we save ten days in another place. I can only conclude that what is blindingly obvious to most of us somehow escapes the Liberal Benches. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will say that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was unaware of it, but he was, unfortunately, away sick at the time; and certainly I think that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had no doubts of the Government's intention. I do not wish to pursue this—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount speaks—and I know he said that he was trampled into the ground, and I see that he is rising with difficulty—I can only say that if there is an apology due I would give it absolutely freely, because we do depend on a clear understanding among ourselves in this House. We do not normally announce in the House what business is, and if there is a misunderstanding I can only regret it. But certainly, and I am sure that the noble Lord will accept this, there was no deliberate absence of candour.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, if I may put this to him, trailed his coat in the hope that I should trample on it. I first knew about this proposal at a late hour towards the conclusion of the

463
Report stage, and I was horrified. But I do not think there is any point in pursuing it.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

COUNTRYSIDE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS BILL [H.L.]
9.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make new provision (in substitution for the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act 1950 and the European Coal and Steel Community Act 1955) as to privileges and immunities and facilities to be accorded in respect of certain international organisations and in respect of persons connected with such organisations and other persons; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

SAINT MARY, HORNSEY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  CREDIT FACILITIES FOR TURKISH SHIP ORDER
  CREDIT FACILITIES FOR TURKISH SHIP ORDER
  DEPORTATION OF STATELESS PERSONS
  DEPORTATION OF STATELESS PERSONS