Sitting of 22 February 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

    COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
    FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL (By Order)
    CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
PETITION

  R.A.F. Station, County of Londonderry
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to present a Petition, signed by more than 18,000 citizens of Northern Ireland, concerning the proposed closure of the Royal Air Force Station in the County of Londonderry.
  The Petition sets out that closure will cause hardship throughout an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom, that it will fall particularly heavily upon those who will lose their jobs, upon their families and
  618
  upon the entire community of the town and district of Limavady which is so dependent upon the spending power provided by the Royal Air Force.
  The Petition states that the blow which will be inflicted by the closure of the station will be the more keenly felt by reason of the affection and regard which the people of the Northern Irish community have for the Royal Air Force and its personnel, having for so long shared with them the rigours and hardships of war, as well as the beneficial effects of peace.
  The Petition concludes,
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do call upon Her Majesty's Government, having regard to their responsibilities to areas of high unemployment, that they do act in this case to prevent the occurrence of further hardship.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    Prices and Incomes
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will impose a more stringent statutory wage standstill.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to the prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement giving an up-to-date assessment of the effects of devaluation on the Government's Prices and Incomes Policy.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will introduce further legislation to restrain wage and price increases.
    The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): The next stage of productivity, prices and incomes policy is being considered by the Government. It will be the subject of further consultations with the Confederation of British

    619
    Industry and the Trades Union Congress. A statement about future policy will be made in due course.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that no such legislation will be introduced during this Session of Parliament? Or is he, alternatively, going to give way to the C.B.I's demand this morning?
    Mr. Shore: I can give the hon. Gentleman no such undertaking. The Government are concerned to see that the voluntary system does not break down. They will not hesitate to strengthen it, and, if need be, to take new powers, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his Answers on 18th January.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the report in The Times today that the Government are considering the introduction of a 12 months' statutory ban on wage increases over the Government's figure of 3½ per cent.?
    Mr. Shore: No, Sir. I cannot deny or confirm it at this stage. As is well known, the Government are considering, the next stage in the incomes policy, and are considering all matters that are relevant to it.
    Mr. Taylor: What about prices? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the nationalised industries are driving a coach and horses through price stability? Is not the 10 per cent. increase in cheap railway fares in Scotland, announced yesterday, yet another example of how Government organisations themselves are destroying price stability?
    Mr. Shore: As the House knows, the Government are as much concerned with prices as with incomes. It was only two or three months ago that prices and charges in nationalised industries were referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, along with major manufacturing industry prices in the private sector.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that from July, 1966, to July, 1967, that is the period of the freeze through to the period of severe restraint. the living standards of workers in this country dropped by 1·2 per cent., and that if there is any suggestion of the reintroduction of
    620
    a wage freeze this will just about smash the Labour movement, and the Government with it?
    Mr. Shore: I do not accept the figures given by my hon. Friend, or at least I should want to look at them and discuss them with him first. I think that that will do for the answer.
    Mr. Whitaker: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to have compulsory wage restraint if the Government will not, or cannot, impose price restraint equally compulsorily, particularly in essential foodstuffs?
    Mr. Shore: I think that any policy for incomes and prices has to be seen to cover both incomes and prices. We cannot have one without the other, but I put it to my hon. Friend that, in a period when we have recently devalued, it is impossible to ask for price stability during that period.
    Mr. Barnett: While accepting the theoretical economic case for wage legislation, would my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the industrial disruption that might be caused by such legislation is more likely to do greater harm than good?
    Mr. Shore: I have no doubt that any legislation, should this be required, must also have with it a tremendous measure of consent to be effective.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many representations about price increases had been received by his Department in recent weeks; what consideration he has given to improving the mechanism for controlling prices as a result of these representations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further progress has been made by his Department in securing greater control of price increases.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): Some 200 representations were received in the first six weeks of this year. As my right hon. Friend has indicated our intention in the post-devaluation situation is to make full use of the existing machinery for the supervision of prices, the effectiveness of

    621
    which is kept under review, including extension of the arrangements for notification of price increases.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not the Minister agree that if the present pattern continues, we shall have a 30 per cent. or more increase in prices before the end of 1968? This will generate increased demand for wages, whatever the C.B.I. may say or the Government may try to do, and push up industrial costs and thus endanger our export position.
    Mr. Lee: No, I do not accept my hon. Friend's figures. As my right hon. Friend was saying, the effect of devaluation is bound to come through now on import prices. Perhaps it would interest the House to know that the report of the N.B.P.I. on distributors' margins will be published today and it has some important points to make on this subject.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say what the departmental view is on the difference of opinion between the Consumer Council and The Grocer publication on the question of price increases? Can he say what further progress has been made in implementing the suggestion that I made to my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago, namely, following the example being set by the Observer newspaper?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend makes an important point in referring to the Consumer Council as distinct from a publication such as The Grocer. For instance, when it recently published the point about 500 price increases, it really covered 26 different commodities. A while ago my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made it clear that in the case of 118 price increases announced by The Grocer they related to various sizes and varieties of Continental cheeses imported by two firms.
    Sir C. Osborne: How can the Government control prices when manufacturers are compelled to pay 17 per cent. more for all the material which they import, because of devaluation?
    Mr. Lee: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has the point. Something which we know and have been saying for some time, of course, is that certain imported ingredients will rise in price. That does not alter the fact that the Gov-
    622
    ernment can take that essential rise into account and still contain it.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many cases of prices being raised without clear justification have been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes since devaluation.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The Government do not prejudge the issue in deciding to refer particular price questions to the Board. The purpose of the reference is to have the application of prices and incomes policy to a particular case independently examined. This can be in the national interest even where prima facie there seems good ground for a price increase.
    Mr. Barnes: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the public are clear in their own minds that there has been a large number of seemingly unjustified price increases, which have not been referred to the Board and which the Government have not acted upon'? Is it Government policy to do nothing about these? When will the Government take steps to protect the standard of living of low-income families in work?
    Mr. Lee: There have been far more prices references to the Board than incomes references. I have here a list of eight prices references since devaluation whereas there have been only two incomes references.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in some respects, it is a good part of the Government's present economic policy, in order to restrain demand, that many prices should be allowed to rise?
    Mr. Lee: It may be an economic argument in that respect, but we want each case to be vetted against the criteria which we are using.
    Mr. lain Macleod: Is the Chancellor aware that during the current year under Part IV there were 14 orders about wages, one on services for laundries and none at all on prices? Does not this show that the prices policy of the Government is and always has been a sham?
    Mr. Lee: No. If the right hon. Gentleman takes increases in prices over the

    623
    period of this Government in office as against the increases in incomes, he will find that income increases are far higher than the increases in prices, as distinct from what was known as the Selwyn Lloyd squeeze.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the additional reasons why there is such wide-ranging opposition among Labour M.P.s to a wage freeze is the position over prices and that we are totally opposed to a wage freeze?
    Mr. Lee: I do not think the Question discusses a wage freeze, but I hope that my hon. Friends will look objectively at prices against incomes for then they will see that that conclusion is a false one.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in prices in 1968.
    Mr. Shore: I have nothing to add to the reply made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 16th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 433.]
    Mr. Taylor: With the increase we are to have how do the Government intend to achieve a reduction in living standards, which the Prime Minister says we must have to make devaluation work, without imposing a statutory wage freeze?
    Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend and I have referred to the cost of the living standard as we see it over the period 1968. I should not like to go beyond what has been said.
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will take steps to publicise Government action on prices within the terms of the Prices and Incomes Act.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: References to the National Board for Prices and Incomes are publicised at the time and the reports made by the Board are presented to Parliament and published.
    Mr. Gardner: Surely my right hon. Friend is aware that most people rightly or wrongly, are under the impression that the Government, while being tough over wages are being very much less tough
    624
    over the matter of prices? If the record of looking at prices and negotiating with manufacturers and referring increases to the Board is a good one as my right hon. Friend suggested earlier, why is he so coy about it? Why can we not have more publicity about what the Government are actually doing?
    Mr. Lee: I do not disagree with the first point made by my hon. Friend that there are impressions to the effect that he stated. My job as I see it today has been to deny that. We use the full powers we have available wherever we believe that prices are being raised out of line with the criteria.
    Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman talks about action but what action are the Government taking to affect any price rises?
    Mr. Lee: That is what we have been talking about today. We have asked for prior notification and when prior notification has been given we have argued very successfully that there should be no rise at all. On other occasions when this has not been possible we have referred the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board. I have given the figures of the number of occasions when this has been done. I have also pointed out that the issue of the retail margin will be published today.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, when making orders under the Prices and Incomes Act, he takes into account overtime earnings as an integral part of incomes for the purpose of deciding whether existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: In considering whether a settlement meets the present criteria for pay increases the level of earnings and hours worked and the likely effect of the settlement on these are taken into account in addition to proposed changes in basic rates.
    Mr. Brooks: What would happen if municipal busmen decided to stop working overtime? Would they then qualify as lowly paid workers and be awarded the £1 increase granted to them by their employers? Then, if they decided to resume working overtime, would my right

    625
    hon. Friend stop them doing so on the ground that this would make them too affluent?
    Mr. Lee: If my hon. Friend were to study the compilation of busmen's rates he would discover that it is very difficult for them to get as low as the basic rate in the industry because even when they are working a 40-hour week many of them have to work in a period when overtime rates are due to them.
    Mr. lain Macleod: How can the Chancellor of the Duchy, or indeed, the Government have a coherent policy in this field until they define what a lower-paid worker is? What is the right hon. Gentleman's definition?
    Mr. Lee: We do not know what a strict definition of a lower-paid worker is. This is a question of whether a basic rate is a real rate for the industry. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to discuss with me what I know to be low-paid workers, I can give him a definition of that.

    Economic Planning
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proposals he has to strengthen his department in order to equip it to plan the economy so as to increase productivity, involve producers in decisions taken by Government, and raise the standards of living of lower-paid workers.
    Mr. Shore: The present establishment of my Department is adequate to enable it to carry out its functions in relation to Government policy.
    Mrs. Short: I was not asking about establishment. Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the way to make his Department the spearhead of Socialist advance that it was intended to be, would be to free it of the Establishment anti-Socialist domination of the Treasury, which is continually giving Ministers outdated economic information on which they are basing their wrong policies? Is he aware that he would have—[Interruption]—full support if he put his foot down?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.
    Mr. Shore: I can assure my hon. Friend that the major concern of the
    626
    Department of Economic Affairs is with planning in the short and medium term. We have to carry out our policies in cooperation with many other Ministries.
    Mr. Fortescue: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider that he is the Establishment now?

    York University (Taxation Research)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what research at York University into changes in taxation provisions in the event of Great Britain joining the Common Market is being subsidised by his Department; and what is the total amount of the cost to be borne on public funds.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Edmund Dell): The research to which reference is made is not supported by my right hon. Friend's Department, but by the Social Science Research Council.
    Turton: Surely this work should have been done by, the officers of the Department and the Treasury before the application was made. Is not this an illustration of the muddle and lack of preparation which preceded the event?
    Mr. Dell: On the contrary, naturally work of this sort is done within the Government, but in this case an application was made by York University to the Social Science Research Council, and after discussion with interested Departments a grant was made.

    East Anglia Regional Planning Council
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he expects to receive a report from the East Anglia Regional Economic Planning Council.
    Dr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) whether he will now announce the date of publication of the regional study made by the East Anglia Economic Planning Council;
    (2) what are the East Anglia Economic Planning Council's medium- and long-term strategies for the region.
    Mr. Dell: It is not possible to give a precise date for publication, but it is expected to be in the late summer of this year. I understand that it will indicate some preliminary views on strategy for the region.
    Mr. Lane: While none of us would want to hustle this Council unreasonably, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner the Council makes known the lines along which it is thinking the easier it will be for industrialists, local authorities and others to give shape to their ideas for development into the 1970s?
    Mr. Dell: I entirely agree with that. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important that this work should be done well. Therefore, we do not wish to hustle the Council.

    South-East
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what decisions he has now reached on the report and study for the South-East.
    Mr. Shore: The Government are giving careful consideration to the report of the South-East Economic Planning Council, but it raises complex issues and I cannot yet say when the Government's views will be announced.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that the new plan, unlike the old, does not give any I.D.C.s to balance the increased residential population which will be coming in? Could he cast some light on this and say whether it is Government policy to give some I.D.C.s in this area?
    Mr. Shore: The South-East Council plan is a draft strategy for the period up to 1981 and, indeed, looking beyond. I do not think that I.D.C. policy was developed very closely in the plan. It will be a matter for consultation between Government Departments.

    National Plan
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement on the medium term outlook, in the light of devaluation, as a first stage of the new National Plan.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what plan-
    628
    ning assumptions the new planning exercise, being a review of the medium-term economic outlook, is based.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement on the effects of devaluation of the £ sterling on the National Plan.
    Mr. Shore: There has been useful discussion in the National Economic Development Council on the economic prospects following devaluation, in preparation for the new planning exercise. I should not wish to prejudge the conclusions of this exercise. The central assumptions are that the transfer of resources to exports and import-saving will ease the balance of payments problem and make possible a higher and more sustained rate of growth.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that we all want him to get the National Plan right now? If he is to get the National Plan right, it would be far better if we knew what were the conclusions on which he based the plan. Why is he being so secretive?
    Mr. Shore: I do not accept that criticism, although I am glad to have the hon. Member's support in the new planning exercise on which we are starting. We have to take a view of the economy in this new post-devaluation situation. We have already begun this and have given a preliminary paper, but we hope to develop it further in the next few months.
    Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that his Answer to my Question is totally unsatisfactory? He has merely repeated what the Prime Minister said. Can he not tell the House the assumptions on which his great planning exercise is based? What about private investment, unemployment, the growth rate and other factors?
    Mr. Shore: There are many assumptions which have to be worked out and brought together, but the key assumption which has been announced is that it is the Government's view that it should be possible for G.N.P. to grow at roughly 4 per cent. this year and possibly 4 per cent. in 1969. These are the starting points.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the new National Plan be based on the real present value

    629
    of the £ or on the hypothesis that the £ in one's pocket has not been devalued?
    Mr. Shore: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures will be consistent.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Secretary of State has said something about central consultation. Can he tell us what consultation, if any, he intends to have more widely with industry and firms? Will it be based, as last time, on a questionnaire?
    Mr. Shore: I should not like to give too firm an answer to that. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that we are discussing planning not only with the N.E.D.C., but also with the E.D.C.s. It may well be that they have a view about the best way of carrying out consultations with firms and we shall take account of that.
    Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is vitally important he should have consultation with individual groups or parts of industry to establish a certain and sure basis for future productivity and planning?
    Mr. Shore: I absolutely accept that from my hon. Friend. The question really is which group, as it were, it is most sensible to contact. Is it in certain cases the E.D.C.s or should it be other bodies and organisations?

    National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what was the total establishment of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to the most convenient date; and how this compares with the same period for the previous year.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: On 1st February, 1968, Board members and staff numbered 206, compared with 125 a year ago.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the dissatisfaction just expressed on both sides of the House shows that his Department is not working? Should he not reduce rather than increase the number of his establishment?
    Mr. Lee: It shows that they are working harder than ever. At the moment, the Board has 23 references before it, as against 19 last year and they are also increasing staff so as to diminish their reliance on outside consultants.
    Mr. Rose: In view of the fact that they are working harder than ever, how many cases of representations against price increases have been successful?
    Mr. Lee: Recently, far more references than for wage increases.

    Brain Drain
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what recommendations he is now implementing, following the Report of the working group on Migration—The Brain Drain, in view of the results shown.
    Mr. Dell: The Report contains wide-ranging conclusions involving the universities, industry and other interests as well as Government. The Government are considering the recommendations as a whole and have commended to the universities and industry those which are addressed to them.
    Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this Report is now six months overdue? If his Department is as efficient as the Government claim, why has it not done something about it?
    Mr. Dell: On the contrary, we are doing a great deal. First, as a result of an agreement between the Ministry of Technology and the M.S.L., a permanent recruiting drive is being undertaken in the United States. Second, with regard to the recommendations about risk finance for research and development, the Industrial Expansion Bill doubles the resources of the N.R.D.C. Much is being done, but much also depends on industry and the universities.
    Mr. Edelman: Will my hon. Friend take into account the effect of mergers on the brain drain? Is he aware that, in Hawker-Siddeley Dynamics, large numbers of valuable and highly-trained scientists are considering emigrating because of rationalisation and the lack of consultation which preceded it?
    Mr. Dell: We will certainly take this into account, but my hon. Friend should

    631
    remember that one of the reasons why many scientists and technologists are not entering industry is that they are not satisfied with the types of laboratory and technical facilities available. One of the consequences of mergers can be the improvement of the standard of industrial laboratories.

    Voluntary Price Vetting Arrangements
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the details of such voluntary price vetting arrangements as have been agreed and indicate how these have been strengthened since devaluation.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir. There are almost 100 goods and services covering the main sectors of industry on the early warning list. The arrangements broadly follow the form described in Cmnd, 2808. Eight items have been added to the list since last summer. Discussions are now taking place with industry about further additions.
    Mr. Biffen: But that does not answer my Question. It is not about early warning but about price vetting. In view of the intriguing commitment of the C.B.I. to the policy of more vigorous price and income restraint, is there any indication that the C.B.I. is prepared to vet price increases in the same way that the T.U.C. has said that it is prepared to vet wage increases?
    Mr. Lee: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consult the C.B.I. on that point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".]—the hon. Gentleman asked me a question which should be directed to the C.B.I. and not to me. Many Government Departments have very fine systems for price vetting, in which they discuss with the appropriate industries applications made by those industries, and on many occasions they are successful in getting the applications either reduced or withdrawn.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the statement of the C.B.I is exceedingly important? I understand that his Department is consulting the C.B.I. continuously, so why does he object to this matter being raised? The point is that they say that they want wages strictly defined, non-extendable
    632
    and strictly limited, but what are they prepared to do about prices? We should know this.
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend got the point of the question entirely wrong. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) was asking questions which I still assert should be directed to the C.B.I. We have always consulted the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his last two answers are preposterous? It is not the job of my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) to implement the Government's prices and incomes policy, although he might wish that it were. The right hon. Gentleman must know whether or not the C.B.I. is prepared to assist the Government in their policy. Is this true or not?
    Mr. Lee: The C.B.I. has not taken responsibility for vetting price increases. What it has done is circularise all its members asking them to limit price advances, according to the criteria which we have laid down.

    National Board for Prices and Incomes and E.D.C.'s (Responsibilities)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement defining the relative areas of responsibility and action between the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the economic development committees.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: The National Board for Prices and Incomes is statutorily responsible for independent examination of particular questions relating to incomes, prices and charges which may be referred to it. An Economic Development Committee has a continuing responsibility for examining the overall economic performance, prospects and plans of the industry concerned.
    Mr. Biffen: That does not get us very far. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is absolute jungle warfare among the proliferating bureaucracy of his Ministry and that Mr. Aubrey Jones—this is an open secret—wishes to investigate the motor industry but that the economic development committee for

    633
    the industry does not wish to be investigated by Mr. Aubrey Jones? In these circumstances, should not the right hon. Gentleman say clearly whether he intends that the motor industry should be investigated by the Prices and Incomes Board?
    Mr. Lee: The relation between that and the original Question is difficult to find. The straight answer is that one cannot make an E.D.C. composed largely of people from the industry concerned the appropriate committee to vet prices and incomes connected with that industry.

    South-East Regional Planning Board (Report)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he will now take in the light of the South-East Regional Planning Board's recent report to offset the effects of the new defence policies on civil manpower requirements within the region.
    Mr. Dell: It is too early yet to know what the effects of the new defence policies will be in the South-East Region.
    Mr. Judd: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, already, as a result of changes in our defence commitments, we are seeing the impact in terms of surplus capacity in manpower and resources, particularly in dockyards, and that we should act now for a smooth transition to the use of these resources?
    Mr. Dell: I entirely agree that unemployment in the Portsmouth area is too high, but the precise impact of defence policies on the South-Fast has not yet been made clear. Clearly, the Government will have to consider what action to take in the light of changes in defence policies.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: Surely, if the Government are as good planners as they say in defence and the civil economy, they should have been able to predict in much greater detail the impact of their own policies on regions like the Portsmouth area?
    Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the changes in defence policy have only recently been made. The Southampton-Portsmouth area is a growth area for new industry, and this may reduce the necessity for further action.

    Humberside (Economic Planning Unit Report)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the report of the Economic Planning Unit on the Humberside will be published.
    Mr. Dell: The Central Unit for Environmental Planning has not yet presented its Report.
    Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all planning development on Humberside has been held up pending this Report and that of the Hunt Committee? Should he not get a move on and see that this Report is made and published?
    Mr. Dell: The Report will be published as soon as possible, but it is necessary, in this case as in others, that the work should be well done. I cannot forecast exactly when it will come.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to confirm that the maps, plans, statistics and facts were given to his Department and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as long ago as last August? Would he instil some sense of urgency into consideration of this matter to still the scepticism of people in Hull about the matter?
    Mr. Dell: My Department certainly has much information on this subject, but, nevertheless, it is a major economic and physical planning study with the object of assessing the long-term future of the area, and it is important that it should not be hurried.

    Full Employment
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will define the term full-employment, as used by his Department.
    Mr. Dell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which the Minister of Labour gave him on 19th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 28.]
    Mr. Price: Will the Minister say simply and clearly that it is the Government's policy to ensure that no man, woman or young person is denied the opportunity of employment?
    Mr. Dell: It is certainly the Government's wish to ensure that no one who wishes to work is unemployed for any length of time. On the other hand, my hon. Friend must remember that the achievement of this ideal objective is dependent on improvement of the balance of payments, the success of our regional policies and the prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Higgins: Is the National Plan based on the assumption of full employment and, if so, what is the figure in quantitative terms?
    Mr. Dell: I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the past National Plan or to projects to publish further information in future.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the actuary's report which we have recently discussed refers to a 2 per cent. Un-employment level agreed to by the Government? This seems to contradict statements made by the Prime Minister Can we have clarification? Is it Government policy to have 2 per cent. Unemployment or not?
    Mr. Dell: No, that certainly is not the policy of the Government. The objective of the Government is to reduce unemployment substantially from its current levels and I hope that will take place in the course of the next 12 months. No doubt my hon. Friend will have seen the unemployment figures issued today, which show a further reduction.
    Mr. Marten: If his right hon. Friend is thinking of a planning exercise, can the hon. Gentleman tell us the estimated level of unemployment to the end of this year?
    Mr. Dell: No, I cannot give the hon. Member any figure for the level of unemployment to the end of the year. The assumptions on which any document is based will be revealed at the time when the document is published.

    Hunt Committee (Report)
    Mr. Henigasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will request the Hunt Committee to expedite its work and complete its report by July at the latest.
    Mr. Shore: I am satisfied that the Hunt Committee is pressing ahead with its
    636
    work as quickly as possible. I do not think it would be helpful to set an arbitary time limit to the study of the complex issues involved.
    Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of disappointment with the seeming lack of urgency shown by the Hunt Committee in preparing its report? Is he aware that the grey areas, which feel their problems increasingly, would very much welcome the Hunt Committee getting on with its job more quickly and at least giving my right hon. Friend an interim report some time early this summer?
    Mr. Shore: I am glad my hon. Friend referred to "seeming" lack of urgency because I do not think there is any actual lack of urgency in the minds or practice of the Hunt Committee. The last time I was answering Questions I explained to my hon. Friend why I did not think it would be helpful to ask the Committee to produce an interim report.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The last time the Secretary of State answered Questions, he said that the Hunt Committee had not yet decided what a grey area was. Has he any more news now after six weeks or more?
    Mr. Shore: I think the hon. and learned Member is having fun with a debating point. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Probably the most difficult and important job that the Hunt Committee has is to establish criteria—which means in a sense arriving at a definition—of those areas in the country which can be considered to be intermediate areas. This is not an easy matter at all. The Committee has invited evidence from a whole variety of areas which consider themselves to be intermediate. Until that evidence has been properly processed I cannot answer the hon. and learned Member who thinks that this is the simplest thing in the world to settle.
    Mr. Wallace: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Hunt Committee if it would be prepared to issue a report on a regional basis on matters on which it has reached a conclusion?
    Mr. Shore: I should be surprised if the Committee was able to reach conclusions on a regional basis.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept congratulations on his use of the admirable term "intermediate" rather than the harmful term "grey areas"?
    Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the hon. Member. It occurred to me that the use of the word "grey" could often be counter-productive in respect of those who use it.

    South-East Northumberland
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for. Economic Affairs what discussions have taken place to assess and take action on the number of jobs required in South-East Northumberland in the next two years arising from projected pit closures in that area.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Action has been taken to deal with the problems arising from colliery closures by scheduling the relevant part of Northumberland as a Special Development Area in which exceptionally favourable terms for industrialists are made available. A more searching and detailed study of the economic prospects and potential of this area is in hand.
    Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although these long-term objectives seem to be operating favourably, the position for the next 18 months to two years looks very grim? Will he speed up the survey and make a closer examination of the situation?
    Mr. Lee: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Northern Economic Planning Board hopes to complete its preliminary studies next month. There are now 3,600 jobs in prospect for males in the employment exchange areas covering most of my hon. Friend's constituency. We have had the recent news of the decision to set up a £24 million nylon plant at Cramlington, and this kind of development is very much to the point.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Northern Region Economic Council has been studying this problem ever since it was initiated about three years ago? Is it still studying? When will the Council come to a decision about anything which will affect the position in the Northern Region?
    Mr. Lee: I do not think that my right hon. Friend can have heard what I said. I talked about the Board, not the Council, making this survey. I know that my right hon. Friend, even with his experience, cannot remember a time when there was not this kind of trouble in the Northern Region. We are doing more to attract industry there than any other Government have ever attempted. At the moment the signs are that we are succeeding. I very much hope, along with my right hon. Friend, that in the next few months there will be an appreciable drop in unemployment levels there.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the recommendations made by the Northern Economic Planning Council and what action has been taken either for or against, with the dates on which the decisions have been taken? Then we should know in the North of England exactly where we stood, which we do not know at the moment.
    Mr. Lee: I will do what I can to help the hon. Lady in that respect. All the recommendations were not made to the Government. Quite a number of them were on issues which the Council itself would take up. A number of the issues which were directed to the Government have either been completed or are in the course of completion.

    Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council (Chairman)
    Mr. Richard Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the present term of office of the Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council expires; and what steps have been taken to ascertain the views of those living in that region about the future of this appointment.
    Mr. Shore: His present term of office expires on 31st March, 1968. I have asked Sir Roger Stevens to continue, and he has agreed. I think he has done an excellent job and I am sure this is widely recognised in the region.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, without disputing Sir Roger's remarkable record as a successful ambassador, what the people of

    639
    Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire most need in facing their artificially created economic problems is a leadership in which they can have undoubted confidence because they have chosen it?
    Mr. Shore: I think that Sir Roger has given very good leadership to the Regional Council. Under his guidance there was published in 1966 for the first time for this new region a study which I think contained a number of very new and important ideas. This has been followed up by a number of sub-regional studies, including one for the Huddersfield and Colne Valley subregions.

    A.E.I. Establishments, South-East London (Closure)
    Mr. Dickensasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what discussions he has now had with the Southern Regional Planning Council about the closure of former Associated Electrical Industries establishments in South-East London.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will invite the South-East Regional Council to examine the implications for new towns in course of construction of the closure of neighbouring factories, without due warning.
    Mr. Shore: The Council is keeping the regional planning implications under review, and it will certainly advise me if it considers such developments are likely to have any serious planning consequences. The Council considered the Woolwich closure yesterday and issued a statement of its views.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 6,000 workers at G.E.C. factories in South-East London first heard of these closures over the factory Tannoy systems? Is not this disgraceful? Does not my hon. Friend agree that, as G.E.C. is being paid £400,000 of the taxpayers' money, the very least that we can expect of the company is that it keeps the South-East Regional Planning Council properly informed of its future policy?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of giving the maximum possible notice, particularly in the case of large-
    640
    scale closures and redundancies of this kind. He will recall that this arose out of a very recent merger and it may not have been as easy to deal with it as perhaps is the case where a firm which is already established is making redundancies. I certainly agree that it is a matter which needs further study, and the Government are conducting that study.

  PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the postponement of the rate support grant for 1968–69 for one year as an alternative to the introduction of prescription charges.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.
  Mrs. Short: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that, if he accepted this suggestion, he would save about three times the amount he is likely to save on prescription charges and he would save also the amount he is likely to save by denying secondary school children their milk? Above all, does he appreciate that it would be much fairer? Will he look at this again?
  The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend is referring not to the rate support grant itself, which involves a total of £1,395 million, but to the domestic element of rate support. I am sure that she realises that, if we were to withdraw that element, which is being very helpful in enabling councils to keep their rates level and, in some cases, to cut them, the effect would be very serious on the lower-paid wage earners, who are, of course, ratepayers.
  Mr. Tapsell: Does not the proposed reintroduction of prescription charges make it all the more urgent for the Prime Minister to fulfil the pledge which he gave to the nation on television on 19th November that he would safeguard the hardest hit sections of the community from the effects of devaluation? When does he intend to announce measures to achieve this?
  The Prime Minister: Certain announcements on this have been made. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are hard at work on the exemption scheme for

  641
  prescription charges, details of which will be announced to the House as soon as possible.
  Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is still not too late to reverse the injudicious decision to re impose prescription charges, especially in view of the huge administrative problems involved and the fact that there are alternative ways of raising the money?
  The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that there is time to reverse this policy, but the Government have announced what the policy is and there is no question of reversing it. The exemption procedures are being worked out now.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is it still the Government's view that the net saving will be £25 million? When are we likely to know the extent of the exemptions? In view of the widespread administrative difficulties, does not the Prime Minister think that this is at least one aspect of Tory policy which he could drop?
  The Prime Minister: We hope to be able to announce the details of the exemption scheme in two or three weeks' time. There is no reason to suppose, on all the figures I have seen and the details which are being discussed with the doctors and others concerned, that the estimate I made on 16th January of the net saving from it will be departed from very seriously. I think that it will be about that figure. As to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he must realise that we have had to decide our priorities between this, on the one hand, and other aspects of the social services, on the other. We think it was the right view to put forward to the House.

  DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS
  Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has to co-ordinate the work of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Economic Affairs in areas of the United Kingdom where cuts in defence establishments affect substantially the overall economy of the region concerned.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends already work closely together on these matters and no new arrangements are needed, Sir.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that the former head of the D.E.A. gave me a pledge that he would set my mind at rest about the future of the Coastal Command station in Northern Ireland, which is now being closed in an area which has practically the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the decision followed the announcement in last July's Defence White Paper to phase out Shackletons. Despite his deep concern about the matter the hon. Gentleman would not wish to confine the Shackle-tons during this period to any areas except those where they are likely to give the best operational results, which I think are Kinloss and St. Mawgan.
  Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in areas such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned there are rich resources of manpower and equipment, and that we should plan carefully for a transition to peaceful production, particularly in dockyards?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is what we are trying to do. He will be as delighted as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) that for Northern Ireland the latest unemployment figure published today, seasonally corrected, is not only 1½ points lower than last autumn but lower than July, 1966, a great deal lower than July and January, 1964, and even more down compared with July and January, 1963. I am sure that we shall have an expression of some satisfaction from the hon. Gentleman.

  MEAT IMPORTS (SOUTH AMERICA)
  Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has to co-ordinate the work of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with regard to imports of meat from South America.
  The Prime Minister: The Departments concerned already work closely together and no new measures of co-ordination are needed.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: Who is being difficult? If there was a prima facie case

  643
  for the ban in the first place, what possible justification can there be for removing it before the committee of inquiry has even started its work?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not think that it is right for me to add to it until the final statement is made which my right hon. Friend said would be before 4th March. He gave the reasons in his statement why more time was needed to complete his inquiries.
  Mr. Thorpe: Since the Government have rightly set up a high-powered committee to look into the whole question of foot-and-mouth disease, would not it be right, in the interests of both the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture, that they should ask for and wait upon an interim report on meat imports from the Argentine and other countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic before the Minister comes to a final view?
  The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the feelings on both sides of the House, particularly those of hon. Members representing agricultural areas, that the ban should continue for a very much longer time. There is also the view expressed by other hon. Members about the very serious effect indeed on our export trade to Latin America. Therefore, the matter must be judged on the basis put forward by my right hon. Friend last week.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister take into account that three farms in the North-West are suffering a foot-and-mouth epidemic for the second time in a few months? Will he pay the same regard to the export problem, which we all appreciate, as he has done to South Africa?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made clear what the position was last week. I do not think that I can add to what he said. It is certainly true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that even where slaughter followed the discovery of foot-and-mouth some months ago certain farms have again been hit by foot-and-mouth now that the farmers have thought that they were clear and started to restock. This has been extremely tragic
  644
  for the farmers concerned. It is a very serious matter for them, and is naturally one of the things that my right hon. Friends must take into consideration.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PRICES)
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to co-ordinate the activities of Ministers responsible for the nationalised industries in order to ensure that the same policy is applied by all the nationalised industries with regard to the publication of the prices of their products.
  The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that the present policy under which some, but not all prices are published, meets both the needs of the consumer and the commercial interests of the nationalised industries.
  Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the National Coal Board is charged by Statute with giving no undue preference or advantage in its prices? How then can the Board offer coal to some consumers at 3¼d. and to others at 5d.?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is no reason why all nationalised industry prices should be published. The Conservative Governments up to 1964 made no attempt to introduce the rule for which he asks. On the contrary, they introduced legislation to remove that obligation from British Rail. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to proposals that fall to be considered under the aluminium smelter suggestions, he had better await an announcement which will come before long.
  Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a continued, irritant rise of prices in the private sector which receive neither publication nor justification? How does he intend to control these rises?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that both price increases and proposals for increases in the public sector have been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and that where price increases in the private sector are reported to the Government and it is thought that they may be unjustified, we are similarly referring them to the Board.
  Mr. Heath: On the question of the aluminium smelter, the Prime Minister has said that he would consider the publication of the economic costs for the fuel it involves when the Government came to a decision. Can he now tell us that in the case of the proposal for coal for the Invergordon smelter the Government will publish the price arrangement made by Lord Robens?
  The Prime Minister: It is too early to say that because we have not yet decided which of the various competing smelter proposals will be given the go-ahead. But my right hon. Friends will consider, when the time comes for an announcement, whether the House can be given all the information for which the hon. Gentleman asked.
  Mr. Bryan: Will the nationalised industries follow the example of the Post Office, where the Postmaster-General is shirking his responsibility to raise prices by asking the National Board for Prices and Incomes to name the prices for him?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that the complaint of hon. Members opposite last year was that nationalised industries' prices were not going to the Board. Now that they are, the hon. Gentleman seems to be unhappy. One thing that my right hon. Friend did not do at the Post Office was to defer for a very long time, on the eve of an election, figures of a very serious deficit which would prove the need for higher prices.

  CIVIL DEFENCE
  Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether he will re-define the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to home defence, following recent policy decisions affecting the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: In making these policy decisions is the Prime Minister trying to kill the voluntary spirit of the people of this country? That is what he is doing.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made up his mind
  646
  on this question which raises very difficult problems. The Government recognise that and have said it in the previous debate. These are matters best expressed in debate, and I understand that there will be a debate very shortly. Indeed, I think that it is scheduled for tonight, quite apart from anything my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may have to announce.
  Mr. Ogden: Is not my right hon. Friend establishing a precedent with this series of questions and answer? If Northern Ireland hon. Members can ask about the defence of civilians in Great Britain does that mean that British hon. Members can ask about the defence of civilians and civil liberties in Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: We have long laboured under that difficulty. I remember that Northern Ireland hon. Members were able to vote on Rachmanism in London but we were not allowed to vote on Rachmanism in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Heath: I understand that the local authority personnel employed full time in civil defence are being stood down and that the Home Office personnel in the regions employed full time are being withdrawn. Quite apart from voluntary personnel, which categories of full-time personnel will be kept on in civil defence?
  The Prime Minister: I would require notice of that question. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, arrangements are being discussed for a full debate, and no doubt that question will be pressed and elucidated then.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter again.

  EURATOM
  Dr. David Owenasked the Prime Minister whether it is now the policy of the Government that, as an initial step, Great Britain should seek to become a full member of Euratom.
  The Prime Minister: As the House knows, we have applied for membership of all three European Communities and these applications stand. Any suggestion from the Council of Ministers that we might join one Community in advance

  647
  of the others would of course be considered on its merits.
  Dr. David Owen: Following the suggestion of Herr Brandt—and I understand the difficulties over the fusion of the treaties—does my right hon. Friend accept that the Euratom Treaty, with its article about common enterprises, offers the opportunity for forming European firms in this vital industry?
  The Prime Minister: I have noted that this suggestion has been put forward, but there has certainly been no proposal by the Council of Ministers collectively that this should be proposed to us. We have expressed the view in the past in relation to our application for membership of all three Communities that we would have a very great deal to contribute to the successful working of Euratom or the nuclear component within the merged Communities.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before the Prime Minister considers joining with Euratom would he make sure that the Euratom countries first have some agreement on how they should budget for that organisation?
  The Prime Minister: There are a number of problems. I think that I have expressed not only that point but also the fact that Euratom seems to have been something of a disappointment to some of its members and that we would have a great deal to contribute to make it more effective.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these attempts partly to join or to creep in by the back door must jeopardise our chances of establishing a stable relationship with E.F.T.A., the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe, with all of which we want to expand our trade?
  The Prime Minister: It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to go in for partial membership of anything in this context. My hon. Friend has referred to a certain suggestion. If there were a suggestion from the Council of Ministers to this effect, we would naturally want to consider it.
  Mr. Heath: While Britain remains outside the Community, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that probably the
  648
  most profitable opening is in the servicing of nuclear reactors both in Europe and outside? On Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to have a co-operative arrangement with Europe. Does that extend to the knowledge of the processing of enrichment at Capenhurst or is that excluded?
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has in mind possible exclusions by us in connection with our arrangements with the United States. Nothing is excluded in this matter. We put forward a proposal in Paris and elsewhere. It has not been followed up, so obviously it has not been discussed in detail with the other Governments. All aspects of peaceful nuclear research were in our minds, including the joint production which I mentioned on Tuesday, and also the joint production of reactors, on which considerable progress is being made, even now, between ourselves and certain of our European partners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Bill.
TUESDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill.
Motion on Sunday Cinematograph Entertainments relating to Skipton.
WEDNESDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Immigration Bill, and of the Education Bill.
THURSDAY, 29TH FEBRUARY—Supply (11th Allotted Day):
There will be a debate on Civil Defence, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Motion relating to the Ayrshire Police Amalgamation Order.
FRIDAY, 1ST MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 4TH MARCH—The business proposed is a debate on a Government Motion to approve the White Paper on Defence, which will be concluded on Tuesday, 5th March.
It may be convenient for the House to have confirmation about the Easter Adjournment; it will be proposed that the House should rise on Thursday, 11th April until Tuesday, 23rd April.
Mr. Heath: The House will have heard with some surprise that on Tuesday we shall have the Second Reading of the Immigration Bill and on Wednesday the remaining stages. The Bill has not yet been published, although I understand that a statement is to be made today. Obviously, everyone will wish to reserve their position, but we acknowledge that now that the Government have decided to legislate it is necessary to do so speedily, and we accept that the proceedings on the Bill should be taken on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Secondly—and this is becoming a customary question—presumably the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the Stansted Order is not to be taken next week. Can he go further, however, and say that the full inquiry which the Council on Tribunals has requested will now be held?
Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be making a statement about Stansted today and afterwards we can discuss what the House should do in terms of debate.
I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Immigration Bill and agree with him that, once the decision has been taken to bring in legislation, obviously we need to get it through as fast as we can, provided we give ourselves adequate time to discuss Amendments and deal thoroughly with the Bill. I think that two days should be enough for that.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for my Early Day Motion No. 140 asking the Government to set up a Parliament for Scotland in accordance with the idea of that distinguished Scottish statesman, the late Thomas Johnston?
[That this House is of opinion that Scotland should have a Parliament of its
650
own within the British Commonwealth of Nations and urges the Government to bring in a Bill to constitute such a Parliament at an early date.]
Mr. Crossman: I am afraid that it is not likely to come before next May, to judge by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party.
Mr. John Hall: Will the Immigration Bill cover the matters raised in Early Day Motion No. 151 and its proposed Amendment?
[That this House call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation to curtail the influx of immigrants into Britain.]
[Line 1, after "House", insert" realising the grave problems which arise when the rate of immigration exceeds the ability to assimilate newcomers and anxious to avoid a situation which will create racial disharmony and prejudice the position of immigrants now resident in this country".]
Mr. Crossman: I think that we had better await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary which is to follow.
Mr. Edelman: When are we to have the promised debate on mergers, since the matter is becoming very urgent?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the urgent need. My right hon. Friends are preparing a statement of Government policy on this matter, but I must warn the House that, with the Defence Estimates coming along, we have almost a close season for the next two or three weeks, because most of our time is committed to defence and the Budget.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that statement about a debate on mergers in view of the situation not only in the constituency of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) but in mine, where a factory owned by Crompton Parkinson is being closed down and much hardship and suffering is likely to be caused?
Mr. Crossman: My constituency is affected as well, but I cannot vary what I have said. From next week onwards our business is very much committed,

651
and I cannot see an opportunity for a debate on mergers in the immediate future. But, of course, I recognise the importance of the subject.
Mr. Delargy: When may we expect a debate on Nigeria, where a cruel civil war has been raging for nine months, chiefly with arms sold to one side by the Labour Government?
Mr. Crossman: Without discussing that imputation, I can tell my hon. Friend that, although this is an important subject, I do not think we shall be able to find Government time for debating it in the immediate future.
Mr. Frederic Harris: When will the Immigration Bill be published?
Mr. Crossman: This afternoon or tomorrow.
Mr. C. Pannell: Bearing in mind the rather long time the Select Committee took to go into the law of privilege and the excellent report it produced, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we should have a debate, if not next week, then soon after, in order to bring our privilege up to date?
Mr. Crossman: I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have been studying this extremely interesting Report. I do not think that we ought to consider debating it in the near future. It is a difficult Report to understand and I want to give the House plenty of time to reflect on it before debating it.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: As we have not debated the subject since the Government's European policy collapsed in December and as last week the Franco-German discussions seemed to hold out the possibility of some guarantee of our commercial relations with Europe pending entry into the E.E.C., will the right hon. Gentleman provide Government time for an early debate?
Mr. Crossman: I shall consider it, but it is unlikely that I shall be able to do it.
Mr. Michael Foot: Are we to understand that for three weeks in succession there has been no request from the Leader of the Opposition for an early debate on his own Early Day Motion No. 136 about Vietnam?
652
[That this House urges the Prime Minister during his visit to Washington to make clear Her Majesty's Government's support for the United States Administration and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand and their allies in their determination to assist the Government and people of South Vietnam in resisting Communist aggression and in their search for an honourable end to hostilities as set out in President Johnson's message on the State of the Union; and, deploring the horror and suffering occasioned by this war, requests Her Majesty's Government to concert with other nations and international agencies practical measures for the relief of this distress.]
Will not my right hon. Friend recognise that some of us want that early debate to take place very soon, particularly in view of the very serious news about the possible escalation of the war by the United States, as published in a report in The Times this morning?
Mr. Crossman: The first part of that question is directed more to the Leader of the Opposition than to me. I am keenly aware of the desire on this side of the House for a debate, but I must remind my hon. Friend that I have my problems. However, although it entirely depends on Mr. Speaker, I believe that there will be opportunities to discuss such subjects during our forthcoming debates devoted to defence matters.
Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed my Early Day Motion on the exorbitant price for land being charged by the Ministry of Health to my local authority? I realise that it is no use asking for an early debate, but will he consider whether it is right that a Government Department should charge exorbitant prices to local authorities?
[That this House considers that the price asked by the Minister of Health from the county borough of Tynemouth, £31,000, for land acquired at the transfer of the Moor Park Hospital under the National Health Act which was originally purchased by the local authority for £7,000, is excessive having regard to the fact that successive Ministers allowed the land to lie derelict for nearly 20 years, thus increasing the price automatically demanded by the district valuer, and that

653
this is contrary to honourable public policy and should be condemned.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that this is Business question time.
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for informing me about conditions in her constituency by means of an Early Day Motion. I have looked at for her sake, and I find that the Department pursued the right procedure, such as was laid down by the Administration that she supported.
Mr. John Fraser: In view of the speedy introduction of the Immigration Bill and the relationship between restriction and assimilation, can the Leader of the House give an assurance that there will be an equally speedy introduction of the Race Relations Bill?
Mr. Crossman: I am extremely grateful for that question, because it is important to see the two Bills together, and I promise that it will be introduced before the Easter Recess.
Mr. Goodhew: In view of the very serious statement published by the South African Government yesterday and vitally affecting the facilities available to the Royal Navy in South Africa, could we have a debate on the Simonstown Agreement next week?
Mr. Crossman: I am afraid that that is unlikely, but I will certainly communicate the request to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Sir B. Janner: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with his colleagues the question of introducing legislation to enable the vicious crime of genocide to be removed from the annals of history altogether by our setting a proper example in accepting the Convention and acceding to it? When does he propose to introduce a Bill accordingly?
Mr. Crossman: Since last week I have studied the position, and I regret that I have not much to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department on this subject, except that this will be considered when we are considering next Session's legislation.
Mr. Hastings: Since the Leader of the House is so reluctant to have a debate on mergers, is it possible that this is because
654
the Government have set up the I.R.C. specifically to encourage mergers and are making their recommendations on the flimsiest possible evidence? Should we not have a debate?
Mr. Crossman: It is quite untrue that I am unwilling to have a debate on mergers. For constituency reasons I am very keen that there should be this debate. What I said was that the pressure on Government business is such that the Government cannot provide time in the immediate future and other opportunities must be found by hon. Members.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Leader of the House consider taking his Motion on Education and Science from the Order Paper tonight in view of its controversial nature and restoring it next week? Is he aware that 15 English Members are to be asked to inquire into the Scottish Department of Education, and that there will be strong resentment about this in Scotland and other places?
Mr. Crossman: It will create considerable resentment if the setting-up of the Committee, which has been long delayed and which we have held up specifically to meet requests from Scotland, were to be delayed for another week. Let us debate it this evening, if necessary, when the time comes.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a debate on Early Day Motion No. 159?
[That this House does not wish the United Kingdom to import diseased meat, whether boned or unboned, either before or after 4th March, nor meat originating in or passing through areas where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic; and calls upon the Minister of Agriculture to say so definitely, irrevocably and immediately.]
This has now been signed by 42 hon. Members. May we have time for this, before the Minister of Agriculture comes to the House and announces a decision so that he may have guidance from the House before taking this very important step?
Mr. Crossman: I could not possibly do that. The desire of most hon. Members is for a statement from my right hon. Friend and the opportunity to question him upon it.
Mr. Mendelson: With reference to the request for a debate on Vietnam, does my right hon. Friend recall that on an earlier occasion, several months ago, he promised the House, after a similar request, a debate on Vietnam and South-East Asia, in particular? That was postponed after discussions through the usual channels and merged into a general two-day debate on foreign affairs. Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is an urgent need for Members of this House to express their opinions about this war? Will he accede to this request before the Recess?
Mr. Crossman: I can really only repeat the point that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I appreciate the fact that the one-day debate on Vietnam was merged into a two-day debate. Nevertheless, we did have that two-day debate on foreign affairs when hon. Gentlemen could express their views on Vietnam. In a two-day debate it was possible. I appreciate the urgency and I repeat that there will be opportunity during the series of debates which we are to have in the next fortnight about defence.
Mr. Marten: As the Labour Party was elected on the ticket of harnessing science to Socialism in the white-heat of technological revolution, could we, after three and a half years of this Government, have a debate on space?
Mr. Crossman: It is a thought upon which I am prepared to reflect during the period ahead when we are discussing defence.
Mr. Ogden: Would my right hon. Friend look again at the possibility of a debate on Vietnam? Has he noticed that when there is an accusation that the Americans are escalating the war there are immediate demands for emergency or Adjournment debates, but in the last three weeks, when the escalation has been mainly from North Vietnam requests have not been made from this side for such an urgent debate? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order, we are drifting into merits.
Mr. Crossman: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that the opportunities for the calling of urgent debates are as much
656
available to hon. Members on this side of the House as the other side.
Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the growing public anxiety, recently shown by the Prime Minister, about the question of the 1958 Munich air-crash, can the Leader of the House say whether the President of the Board of Trade will make an announcement regarding a new British inquiry?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot, but I will certainly communicate the request to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Heffer: Since 191 Members, mainly on this side of the House, have signed my Early Day Motion No. 130, calling for a security conference in Europe, could my hon. Friend give an assurance that we will get—I will not say an early debate, because I have asked for that before—but will he see that reasonably early we debate this important matter?
[That this House welcomes the proposal of a European Security Conference as outlined in the communiquéé following the visit of the Prime Minister to Moscow; believes that now is the time for a British initiative in this direction and urges the Government, in agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to make early contact with all those states eligible to attend; and further believes that such a conference would present the opportunity for a peaceful solution to the European security problem, with the possibility of a nuclear-free zone in central Europe.]
Mr. Crossman: I recognise the importance of this matter. I have had requests from both sides of the House for a debate on European affairs. This is a reasonable request, which we need to meet at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Biffen: What proposals does the Leader of the House have to ensure that Parliamentary time will be made available on such a scale that this House is not placed at a disadvantage relative to bodies such as the Confederation of British Industry, during this period when the Government are now taking consultation with a view to formulating the next stage of the Prices and Incomes policy?
Mr. Crossman: I think that we shall have opportunities when we come in due

657
course to the Budget and the Budget debate. There will be widespread opportunities for debate on economic affairs, including incomes and prices.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the damage that is being caused by mergers and takeovers, for example the closedown of Lucas Gas Turbines of South London, causing hardship in a number of London constituencies? Have not the Government got their priorities wrong in these respects, and will they not give up some of the time devoted to immigration to deal with mergers and take-overs?
Mr. Crossman: I would like my hon. Friend to reflect on that. If we are to legislate about immigration, it is essential that the legislation goes through quickly and decisively. There is therefore a special reason, otherwise I would not have upset the business of the House to do it. On the question of the mergers, this is a major problem which will be with us for some time, and there is still time to debate it. We certainly cannot deal with it before we deal with immigration.
Mrs. Ewing: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion on the Order Paper, tray I ask him to reconsider this again? This is very short notice and a far-reaching principle is involved, when a Committee is appointed with a ratio of 13 English Members to two Scottish Members to look at the Scottish Education Department.
Mr. Crossman: I have answered this question. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper and it is debatable in due course. I cannot see what complaint the House can have about that.
Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House have been pressing for a debate on Vietnam, before during and after recent events—throughout the whole of the period of this war. I know that my right hon. Friend would not want to be accused of misleading the House, but he promised a debate on one of the days, specifically on this subject, when we had the two-day debate. This did
658
not materialise. When can we have this debate because we want it urgently?
Mr. Crossman: I will certainly note that. There is a steadily growing demand for a debate, which is wholly reasonable. However, I have pointed out that there is no immediate prospect of including time for it in the next week or two.
Mr. Pavitt: Will the miserable re-imposition of prescription charges be put to the House by an affirmative Order?
Mr. Crossman: I think that the answer is yes.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the Government provide time for a debate on the specific issue of relations with Australia and New Zealand which have been falling into disarray and will become even worse when today's White Paper reaches Canberra?
Mr. Crossman: If my hon. Friends want a debate on Vietnam and the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants one on Australia and New Zealand, they could join in a debate on South East Asian affairs.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I might say that I was incorrect in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). It is a negative and not an affirmative Order.
Mr. Molloy: In addition to takeovers and mergers, is my right hon. Friend aware that the transfer of large portions of the electrical and engineering industries from the Greater London area is causing much consternation in trade union circles and in the families of those involved? Is my right hon. Friend not prepared to give an absolute assurance that we will have an early debate on this important subject in the very near future?
Mr. Crossman: We are moving together in our discussion. I said an early debate, though not in the very near future.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Callaghan.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION
The Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I wish to make a statement on a number of matters in the field of Commonwealth immigration.
The Government have watched with great concern the rapid departure from East Africa of holders of United Kingdom passports and their arrival in this country.
As the House knows, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald has recently visited Kenya, where he had full discussions about this problem with President Kenyatta and the Kenya authorities. Her Majesty's Government have also been closely in touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan. During the last three months, over 7,000 have arrived, which is more than for the whole of 1966. The signs are that, if no action were taken, the flow would increase at an even faster rate. This sudden arrival of large numbers of people is placing a serious strain upon the services of those areas where they decide to settle. Whilst the Government are extremely reluctant to interfere with the arrival of persons holding United Kingdom passports, nevertheless it is necessary for the inflow to be brought under control.
A Bill will be presented tomorrow bringing under immigration control citizens of the United Kingdom holding United Kingdom passports who have no substantial connection with this country, for example, by birth or paternal parentage. This legislation will not only apply a control to the present rush of immigrants from East Africa; it will also extend to persons in other parts of the world who have hitherto been similarly exempt from United Kingdom immigration control.
There will be a special allocation of 1,500 vouchers a year for such persons. Voucher holders will of course, be entitled to be accompanied or joined later by their dependants. In this way it will be more possible for immigrants from East Africa to arrive here at a rate at which they can be absorbed into the community. The effect will be that those wishing to come will have to wait their turn.
660
The Government have also reviewed the existing scheme of employment vouchers, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be announcing changes that are being introduced. These will be designed to reduce the present long waiting lists, to adapt the scheme more closely to this country's economic and social needs, and see that as far as possible immigrants with special qualifications do not find themselves unable to secure jobs appropriate for those qualifications.
The Bill will also contain provisions for dealing with the problem of clandestine immigration by Commonwealth citizens. It will make clandestine entry an offence, and there will be provisions for substantial penalties for those convicted of smuggling in immigrants unlawfully. The period of 24 hours after landing within which an immigrant can be required to submit to examination by an immigration officer will be extended to 28 days.
The Bill will curtail the right of dependent children, up to the age of 16, to join a single parent in this country. The original provision was intended to ensure the unity of the family, but the Government have been concerned by the great increase in arrivals of children at or about school-leaving age seeking work and often coming to live in an all-male household. The existing right of dependent children to join both parents in this country remains unaltered. Next week I shall lay before the House as a White Paper a draft of instructions to immigration officers setting out how they are to exercise discretion to admit children to join a single parent. It will also include instructions that they are not in future to admit dependent fathers below the age of 65. The present minimum age for admission is 60. Enforcement has been difficult, and some men enter at younger ages in order to take employment here.
Finally, the legislation will give power to require that dependants can be asked to undergo medical examination at the ports of entry, and subsequently to report to the medical officer of health for treatment.
The Government are satisfied that these measures are necessary in fairness to the people of this country and in the interests of equitable treatment for the citizens of the Commonwealth as a whole. The

661
Government's purpose is to create a climate in which good community relations in this country can be fostered.
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I have had a copy of his statement in my hands for a relatively short period of time and that I have not seen the terms of the proposed Bill. At this stage, may I content myself with asking two rather short questions? The first is about the 1,500 vouchers referred in to the fourth paragraph of his statement. Is that a new allocation outside the existing A and B vouchers which are at present current, or will it be contained within the maximum of the existing vouchers? Secondly, with regard to the charges to be announced by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, can we be quite sure that they will be available by the time we debate the Second Reading of the Bill? I am sure that this decision has caused the right hon. Gentleman grave anxiety, as it has to us on this side of the House, but I do not want to say more at the moment.
Mr. Callaghan: As regards the right hon. and learned Gentleman's two questions, it seemed proper to the Government that the 1,500 vouchers should be additional to those already in existence for Commonwealth citizens. This group must be regarded as a special category with exceptional claims, and the number of vouchers that will be issued to them is greater, and in my view rightly greater, than the proportion of population to which it may be thought to be applicable.
As regards the special changes that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be making, I will certainly make further inquiries, but I have been acting on the assumption that they will be available by the Second Reading.
Sir Dingle Foot: Do the Government not appreciate that it is a very grave matter to interfere with the legal rights of Her Majesty's subjects who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who are holders of United Kingdom passports? Have not the people concerned relied upon these rights ever since 1963?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I think that this is a very grave matter. It is for that reason that the Government have not rushed legislation on it. We have
662
been watching the situation which has been building up very steadily for a number of months. I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend says and what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) says. This is a matter for very grave and earnest consideration. But the Government believe on balance that, whatever the difficulties of legislating, it would be less in the national interest not to legislate. I fear that it is on the basis of that consideration that we have reached our conclusions.
Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his decision to tackle this urgent problem will be received with profound relief all over the country?
Mr. Callaghan: I believe that the citizens of this country recognise their responsibilities in respect of obligations which have been entered into by either the present or previous Administrations. I have no wish to debate the matter now. Whether it will be received with relief, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinion. I very much regret that it is not possible for this country to absorb these persons, to whom we have given the most solemn pledges, at a pace. If we did, I fear that it would cause racial disharmony and explosions.
Mr. Whitaker: Will the Bill provide for a proper system whereby entry permits are issued abroad to save distress to people who arrive here and have to be returned home? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that any such new restrictions will apply to all immigrants, irrespective of race, colour, or country of origin?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. Taking my hon. Friend's first question, the entry certificate procedure will be encouraged, and we shall certainly ask and try to organise the administration in other countries to ensure that people do not arrive here without an entry certificate and find themselves in a very difficult position.
As regards his second question, the answer is yes. Some would think that it is a singular fact that an Australian may not come here at the moment without a particular voucher, whereas these citizens can. I am not arguing the rights

663
or wrongs of it. But, in this legislation, the control will apply to all Commonwealth citizens, no matter what their race or colour.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Home Secretary recognise that we have some sympathy for him in making this statement in this disagreeable situation? May I ask him whether in the new controls which he envisages there will be introduced a proper, impartial appeal procedure against the decisions made by immigration officials?
Mr. Callaghan: I am aware of the recommendations of the Wilson Committee, and it is something that could be regarded as desirable, but I am reinforced by the fact that the Wilson Committee found that there were very few mistakes made by Home Office officials in the administration of this control and they wanted it introduced in order to give an appearance of fairness. I regret to say that at the moment I have neither funds nor staff available for this purpose.
Mr. Rose: In accepting the need for planning, not merely in immigration, would my right hon. Friend make it clear that although there are to be limits on entry these people will not ultimately be deprived of British nationality? This would be against Conventions which this country has entered into.
Mr. Callaghan: There is no intention to deprive these persons of British nationality. It will be a question, as it were, of forming a queue under which they may enter this country.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for remedying the defects which have shown themselves in the 1962 legislation in respect of clandestine entry, can the right hon. Gentleman say what his proposals are in respect of people who come without permits and so, somewhat unfairly to other people who have applied for them, if they are apprehended, are there to be powers to secure that they do not remain here, and if so, where are they to be sent?
Mr. Callaghan: This is a matter which needs to be debated. It has given us a good deal of concern and I do not want
664
to give an immediate answer in a sentence this afternoon.
Mr. James Griffiths: I appreciate the steps my right hon. Friend and the Government are taking—I think that they are right—but I hope he will also bear in mind that the Indians are in East Africa because we as a country brought them there and have profited from their work. After the conversations which Mr. Macdonald has had with the Kenya Government, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us, as he has already, that they will keep British citizenship and that they will be encouraged and welcomed to become citizens of Kenya to further its economic development.
Mr. Callaghan: I think this is probably a question for my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, but as I understand the matter these persons are still free to apply for citizenship of Kenya, and it will be for the Kenya Government to show by their actions how much they value their services, skill and ability.
Sir C. Osborne: Since it is difficult to ask a question on a Bill we have not seen, may I for my sake say to the Home Secretary that I wish him well in dealing with this highly difficult and emotional problem?
Mr. Callaghan: There has been a good deal of emotion, not all of it of the purest kind, expressed about that problem, and I can only say that the statement that was issued by the Conservative Party yesterday, and which I read with very great care, in many ways goes along with the statement I have made today. We have both been thinking no doubt on similar lines. I have had a great deal of time to think about that and I would hope—and I address this particularly to the hon. Gentleman—that we would not get into a party controversy about this and that there will be no inflammatory statements made.
Miss Lestor: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the agitation and the racialist statements which have been made by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) over the last few years have produced what they wanted—the acceleration of immigrants from Kenya and other parts of the

665
world which has forced us into a position that is abhorrent to many of us on this side of the House?
Mr. Callaghan: This is asking me for an opinion. If I am asked for it, I will give it. It seems to me that three factors have contributed to the situation over the last few months. The first is the action of the Kenya Government in relation to employment; the second the action of the Kenya Government in relation to trading facilities for these people, and, thirdly, the speeches of some right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is extremely important to keep the temperature down about this kind of thing and that attacks on individuals in this House on either side do not necessarily help to do so?
Mr. Callaghan: I follow that, but I think we ought to understand that a great deal of agitation among East Asians has been caused by suggestions here that there is going to be closure of the immigration controls, and that this has precipitated a flow which would not otherwise have been as great as it will now be.
Mr. Macdonald: Is there any precedent for restricting the right of holders of British passports to enter this country, and are we to understand that holders of British passports are to be restricted whereas residents of Eire will be able to enter quite unrestricted?
Mr. Callaghan: This is a unique situation. There has been no precedent for it, as far as I know. This will be the first occasion on which legislation of this sort has been proposed. The position of Eire citizens is different.
Mr. Thorpe: Could I press the Home Secretary a little further on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel)? The right hon. Gentleman has said that this is the first time that holders of United Kingdom passports may be excluded from coming into the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend asked whether this was to be a matter which would be subject to an independent appeal? The Home Secretary said that he had not funds to do that and that the Wilson Report had not recommended it.
666
Surely the right hon. Gentleman should have independent and impartial machinery for judging the claims of United Kingdom passport holders who are excluded from coming to this country? Is it not a reasonable request?
Mr. Callaghan: If the implication of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North's (Mr. Thorpe) question is that they are to be excluded for ever, I did not say that. It is a matter of taking their turn in a line of people waiting to enter. Therefore, they are not quite in the same position as other Commonwealth citizens who would be excluded and never allowed to enter.
As regards the Wilson Committee's recommendations, I have been under great pressure for economies in many directions. I have not got a Vote for these funds, and I am asked to keep down staff. There would be substantial machinery required for this purpose. I hope the House will feel that in present circumstances—I emphasise that it is in present circumstances—the discretion which has been vested in the Home Secretary, and which the Wilston Committee said had been pretty fairly carried out, will continue to be as fairly carried out in future. As for legislation on the Wilson Report, as the Lord President indicated, there cannot be legislation this Session.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going to debate this on Tuesday.
Mr. Sandys: In view of the fact that I was personally attacked by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We should be able to proceed.
Mr. Sandys: I wonder whether I might be allowed an additional supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: I do not see why not, in the circumstances.
Mr. Sandys: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough and possibly by implication, although I do not know, by the Home Secretary about my speeches recently, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he realises that, at the request of his predecessor, I

667
remained silent on this question for over a year and that it was only when the flood of immigrants from East Africa started that I felt it necessary to speak out?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall debate this issue on Tuesday.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order. Unless you, Mr. Speaker, were referring to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone as "Mr. St. John-Hogg", did I not hear you call my name?
Mr. Speaker: It sometimes happens that half a back-bencher's name is called and then his being called is pre-empted by a Front Bench Member. This is most unfortunate. I called half the hon. Gentleman's name.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Could I ask half my supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: I knew that it was not an innocent point of order.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT (INQUIRY)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I will, with permission, make a statement on the Government's proposals for a third London airport.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has consulted local authorities and other bodies about a realignment of the runways of Stansted, and we have now studied all the replies. These raise certain new considerations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Although realignment would greatly reduce the number of people seriously affected by noise, it would affect many people who had neither the occasion nor the opportunity to object at the original inquiry. Moreover, those consulted have represented that the additional land requirement and provision for expansion to a four runway airport amount to such a radical departure from the earlier proposals as to constitute virtually a new project.
In the light of these considerations, and the continued public concern about the Stansted decision, and the general wel-
668
come given to the proposals in the Town and Country Planning Bill for dealing with cases of this type, the Government have decided to refer to an inquiry which will take place in public, the question of the siting of the third London airport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This will be a far wider inquiry than that proposed in the report by the Council on Tribunals. It might take the form of a Planning Inquiry Commission, duly constituted after the Bill has become law, or it might take some other form. We would wish to discuss the exact form of the inquiry with the Opposition, bearing in mind the need to proceed with all reasonable speed. Meanwhile, we shall not proceed with the Special Development Order for Stansted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. Corfield: We of course welcome this belated change of heart on the Government's part, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is now adopting a proceeding pressed upon him by this side of the House for many months and that his main reason for not following that in the past has been the urgency of the matter. Can he now tell the House his estimate of the time scale on the need for a third London airport? Although we welcome the offer to discuss the form of the inquiry, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that it will be fully comprehensive and, in particular, that he will put in hand at once, if he has not done so already, the necessary origin and destination surveys for both passengers and aircraft on which so much depends?
Mr. Crosland: It is still the Government's view that we shall need a third London airport by the middle 1970s. For that reason, it is extremely important to have a form of inquiry which, while being, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, thorough and seen to be objective, will carry through its proceedings with the greatest possible speed. That is why we should like to have consultations with the Opposition. The inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the end of his supplementary question will be pursued.
Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread approval which his decision will meet from people of all parties, not only in the Stansted area but

669
throughout the country, particularly because right hon. and hon. Members opposite bear an equal share of responsibility for the ill-fated decision when they were in government? Would my right hon. Friend confirm that alternative sites will be considered by the inquiry?
Mr. Crosland: I can confirm that the inquiry, whatever its exact form, will be free to consider any alternative site it chooses, although no doubt, in practice, it will concentrate its attention on the relatively limited number of sites which have emerged in the last ten years or so of public discussion. It is worth bearing in mind that the original decision to choose Stansted was announced by Mr. Julian Amery in the White Paper of 1964.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would the President of the Board of Trade join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), whose pertinacity on this question has contributed so much to this extremely happy result?
Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman shows a certain party prejudice in singling out his hon. Friend and not hon. Friends of mine whom I could single out. The Government have taken this decision in response, not merely to the very legitimate pressure of the House, but to the clear signs, both locally and nationally, which have emerged over the last few months that public anxiety and debate about the decision still continues. In the light of that, it seemed right to the Government to take what is a serious risk of delay in order to satisfy public opinion that the right decision is taken and that the matter has been examined objectively.
Mr. Shinwell: May I, speaking as a loyal and devoted supporter of Her Majesty's Government, ask my right hon. Friend whether before the original decision about Stansted airport was reached there was a full and exhaustive inquiry into all the implications and possible complications? If the Government have now decided to change their mind on what they regard as a vital matter, is there not some justification for the complaint of many of my hon. Friends that the Government are not resilient enough to change their mind on perhaps
670
a less minor and less expensive matter like prescription charges?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must keep to Stansted.
Mr. Crosland: You, Mr. Speaker, seem to be giving me an excuse for not answering the second part of the supplementary question. On the first part, my right hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that before the previous Government announced their choice of Stansted in the White Paper of March, 1964, no public and objective inquiry such as the one I am proposing was ever conducted.
Mr. Kirk: May I express my deep gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement today and, if it is in order, my thanks to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) for all he has done and to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas), and assure him that those of us who have objected to the scheme will co-operate to the full with the inquiry? Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consult local authorities before he draws up the terms of reference?
Mr. Crosland: I will consider the last point. As the hon. Gentleman very well knows, we have already been in consultation with them, not on the nature of the inquiry, but on the merits of the realignment.
Mrs. Renée Short: May I thank my right hon. Friend very sincerely, particularly on behalf of the county of Hertford, which will be very grateful to him for taking this decision? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hertford?"] I happen to live in Hertfordshire. Would my right hon. Friend enlist the help of the South-East Economic Planning Council—it was not consulted before—so that it can carry out a full economic survey of all the implications—transport costs, and so on—before a decision is made?
Mr. Crosland: I have no doubt that, whatever precise inquiry is set up, it will certainly be aware of the views of the South-East Economic Planning Council already and will wish to take them very fully into account.
Sir B. Craddock: In view of the substantial increase in traffic which will take place in the next few years—with

671
the jumbo-jet and so forth—and the very grave problem of noise at London Airport and other airports, would the right hon. Gentleman consider extending his inquiry to whether it is possible to get a site far away from London and so reduce traffic at London and other airports in the future?
Mr. Crosland: We certainly do not want the terms of reference of the new inquiry to be too restrictive. On the other hand, nearly all the critics of the Stansted decision have conceded that a third London Airport in the South-East almost certainly will be necessary. Therefore, I think it is essential that the inquiry should concentrate on that.
Mr. Boston: While I am not able to welcome with unreserved enthusiasm my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him to confirm that all organisations and the people in all the various alternative sites which have from time to time been suggested will have the fullest possible opportunity to present their views? Can he also say whether such considerations as offshore sites, which have been put forward from time to time, will be borne in mind? Finally, might not consideration also be given to the question of whether the next airport ought to be outside the South-East?
Mr. Crosland: Yes, I can fully confirm my hon. Friend's first point. On the question of offshore sites, I do not want to tie the hands of the inquiry but it is inconceivable that in practice it would not consider this possibility, which has been much discussed in the Press recently. On the question of another airport outside the South-East altogether, I reiterate what I said just now. I do not want the terms of reference to be too restrictive, but almost everybody who has considered the problem is convinced that we shall need somewhere in the South-East another airport whatever we might need in other parts of the country in future years.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I was mulling over a question designed to get him to put the record straight regarding what happened after the appointment of the original inquiry? However, I shall not now put it to him. I merely ask whether he is
672
aware of the great relief that my constituents will feel over the decision that he has made?
Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend take note that many of us will consider it a shameful act by the Government to change their mind and that when the inquiry considers alternative sites the outcry that will follow if he is unwise enough to settle on another site will make the outcry in the Stansted case sound like peanuts?
Mr. Crosland: That certainly suggests an outcry of a very considerable volume. However, to answer the serious part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not consider this a shameful decision. No Government like to change their mind in public. I do not say that they never do it, but at least they do not like it. However, I think that in a case like this, where both local opinion and national opinion clearly was not satisfied, rightly or wrongly, with the decision, it was the Government's duty, although they laid themselves open to this patent criticism, to take that criticism and say even at this stage that they would set up an objective inquiry.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I and my colleagues share the general satisfaction expressed that for once in the lifetime of this Parliament the generally expressed views of the people have prevailed over the obstinacy of the Government? Is he also aware that we do not agree that critics of the siting of the third London airport have been satisfied that a third airport is necessary? Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the origin and destination survey of traffic so that the figures can be laid before the inquiry?
Mr. Crosland: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am afraid that I omitted to look up the record of the Liberal Party in the course of these endless discussions and have no idea where, if anywhere, they stood in the course of them. As to the second part of the question, all relevant information of this kind will be laid before the inquiry.
Mr. Atkinson: While welcoming the Government's decision——
Mr. Shinwell: But my hon. Friend voted for the original decision.
Mr. Atkinson: I was at that time a rather reluctant prisoner. While welcoming the statement made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to assure the House that in future N.A.T.O. evidence will be excluded from the inquiry?
Mr. Crosland: I am not sure precisely what my hon. Friend has in mind, but defence considerations in general are, of course, highly relevant to the inquiry. The House will remember that one of the main reasons why the previous decision, under the previous Government and the present Government, went against Silver-stone was precisely defence considerations—not because of N.A.T.O. solely but because of general defence considerations. One of the things that we shall want to discuss with the Opposition and others is how these defence matters can be considered by the committee of inquiry without raising difficult questions of security.
Mr. Corfield: To put the record straight, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any Conservative so-called decisions were subject to discussion and inquiry? As much of the criticism has been directed at the way in which the procedure was carried out, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Report of the Council on Tribunals is published so that we can avoid those errors in future?
Mr. Crosland: The Report of the Council on Tribunals will be published. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Gov-
674
ernment may have certain comments to make on it. But what we are proposing goes far beyond that. As to the attitude of the previous Government, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In his introduction to the 1964 Hole Report, Mr. Julian Amery said that the Report concluded:
"that Stansted Airport should be selected and designated as London's third airport."
This was announced as a Government decision. The inquiry promised by Mr. Amery was not an inquiry into whether this decision was right, but merely an inquiry into the reasons why the decision had been taken.
Mr. Heath: The President of the Board of Trade has not done his homework. Following that, in the public discussion, the Prime Minister of the day was committed to the public statement that there would be the fullest inquiry into the whole arrangement.
Mr. Crosland: Yes. This was a promise elicited from the then Prime Minister in the middle of a General Election. Nobody in either party, it is fair to say, thought that this meant that the previous Government were going back on the 1964 Hole Report and doing what we are now doing—throwing the whole question of the siting of the third London airport to a full and objective inquiry.
Mr. Heath: It was a promise given by the Prime Minister, and on this side we keep our promises.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In view of the time which has been spent after Questions I will try to truncate the remarks which I intended to make in introducing the Bill, although not to truncate them to a state of incoherence. The Bill is concerned with trading practices and its main purpose is to protect consumers, the buyers of goods and services, from swindles, unfair practices, misdescriptions and false claims which are perpetrated by a relatively small minority of traders. A some what disreputable fringe of the trading community. It has another purpose, too—to help the best traders to maintain and perhaps improve their good standards of service to their customers. They are helped in part by our putting a stop to the unfair and sometimes fraudulent practices of their competitors. But we are also making provision for better standards of advertising and labelling which, if considered necessary, could be legally enforced.
  A measure such as this, with the aims which I have briefly mentioned, has long been needed. We have had some protective legislation on these lines for about 80 years, in successive Merchandise Marks Acts, which have given protection regarding certain trade descriptions. It is true that our Victorian predecessors put some stern concepts of integrity and fair dealing into their Statutes and over the years offender have been duly punished by the courts. But these Victorian laws have served their purpose. The basic legislation has been amended and extended to meet changing conditions on several ocasions. The whole of this protective legislation is very much out of date. We need a new start and new legislation—in my view, legislation which looks ahead and provides a charter for fair trading which will serve as basic law for a long time to come.
  The Bill is needed, too, because we have to take account of many new pro-
  676
  ducts, new methods of trading and improved standards of living, which bring such articles as radios, television sets, refrigerators and washing machines, and a wide range of all kinds of goods and services, within the means of the majority of families, which the Victorian law makers had never heard of and never imagined. As ordinary domestic products become more sophisticated and are mass produced and widely advertised, the opportunities for unscrupulous traders to exploit customers and consumers are also widely increased. Very few shoppers today are skilled or knowledgeable enough to know whether they are getting honest value for their money. They do not always know what is inside the elaborate package and they cannot always trust the words on the label.
  I must make it clear that most manufacturers, traders and providers of services are completely honest. They value their goodwill and their reputation and they know that there is little future for them in business if they fail to maintain those standards. But in our complex trading system it is far too easy, as things are, for unscrupulous, often fly-by-night operators, to deceive people, to pass off shoddy goods as high-grade goods, and to misrepresent the services which they offer. We have a duty to bring our protective legislation up to date.
  Many hon. Members know that I, for one, did some campaigning from the early 1950s from the Opposition side of the House for the introduction of a Bill such as this. Eventually we persuaded the then Government to set up the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection to make recommendations for new legislation. I want to get that on the record. If I had had the support which I should have had from the then Government, it would have been done much earlier.
  One of the Committee's main recommendations was that new legislation was needed to replace the various Merchandise Marks and other Acts, and this Bill carries out that recommendation. It goes further than the Molony Report in one or two respects. Incidentally, because the Bill arises from the Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection, we properly called it the Consumer Protection Bill and those words appear in the

  677
  first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum. I think that that is an appropriate title. But it was changed in another place. However, it is the substance of the Bill that matters. We can consider the title as we go along.
  I will not explain in detail all the provisions of the Bill. When she concludes the debate, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to any points raised in the debate. For her, this is something of a family affair, because Lady Phillips took a leading part in the debates on the Bill in another place. The Bill has been around for some time and hon. Members know in general terms what it contains. Generally speaking, it has been well received by trade associations, by consumers' organisations, and by those who will have the task of administering it, the local weights and measures authorities.
  One of the main defects in the present law which the Bill puts right is concerned with advertisements. At present it is very difficult to bring a successful prosecution in respect of a false trade description as used in an advertisement. False advertising, of course, not only harms the customers who are misled into buying goods which have been falsely described. It also damages the interests of honest traders. To try to counter this kind of activity many reputable manufacturers and traders have sent up their own organisation, the Retail Trading Standards Association, to seek out and to bring prosecutions against the operators. This they do sometimes successfully but always with considerable difficulty.
  In Clause 5 we strengthen the law on false advertising. I do not think that any hon. Member will wish to weaken that provision, but I am sure that there will be discussion about where the line is to be drawn between misleading advertising and persuasive advertising which is permissible and should not be prohibited. Let me make the position clear. As I have said in so many of these debates on consumer protection, there is nothing wrong with persuasive advertising, as long as it does not misrepresent the product or the service which is being advertised and is not designed to mislead or deceive the customers. What I call persuasive advertising is a legitimate means of trade promotion if it does not go beyond the dividing line and become
  678
  misleading. We have to decide where we draw the line.
  Clearly we must be very careful here. We have to give as clear an indication as we can of what we mean by a false trade description, and that indication must be based on practical common sense considerations. We have to begin by explaining in straightforward language what is a trade description. That is done thoroughly clearly in Clause 2(1).
  The matters which form the subject of a trade description have been considerably widened compared with the present law, notably by adding all physical characteristics of the goods and the history of the goods, including previous ownership and use. A typical case which might be covered by this extension is that of the itinerant carpet sellers who go round the country claiming, usually in local newspaper advertisements, that they are selling good quality carpets salvaged from a shipwreck or warehouse fire but who, in fact, are palming off cheap, low-grade, unserviceable carpets, which have never been anywhere near a shipwreck or a fire.
  Having made clear what is a trade description we must then explain that a false description is one which is false to a material degree. There has been much discussion about where we should draw the line for the purpose of guiding prosecutions, if any should arise, bearing in mind that the offences in the Bill are criminal offences and that we must therefore guard against frivolous prosecutions. The words which are in Clause 3—that for it to be an offence an advertisement must be false to a material degree—are now generally approved. It will, of course, be for the courts to decide whether the degree of falsity is material, having regard to all the circumstances, in any proceedings which may arise.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Surely the right hon. Gentleman means the description and not the advertisement?
  Mr. Darling: Yes. I am sorry if I said "advertisement". I should have referred to a trade description in the advertisement being wrong to a material degree. This is where shorthand sometimes gets upset. It is a trade description used in an advertisement that is false to a material degree.

  679
  Perhaps I might now go on to state what is meant by applying a trade description to goods. The obvious means of doing so are set out in Clauses 4 and 5, by means of labels, marks, advertisements, and so on. All this is in line with the Malony Committee's recommendations, but we have added something that was not in the recommendations. We have brought in oral statements. As hon. Members will be aware, this has come in for some criticism, some opposition, and some misunderstanding. The fact is that we cannot leave oral statements out of account if we are to ban all false descriptions of goods, and guarantee customers a square deal. This is not an innovation. As the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) knows, this provision is in other, somewhat similar, legislation introduced by the previous Administration.
  Nevertheless, I can understand the attitude of perfectly reputable traders, some of whom have expressed their misgivings to me. They do not want to be hauled into court as a result of an innocent shop assistant unwittingly making a mistake, probably in reply to a customer's question about some feature of the goods that he is buying. Neither do they want to face a prosecution as the result of a disgruntled employee disobeying the rules and making a false statement deliberately to cause trouble. There is, of course, the other side of the matter. The honest trader does not want to face the prospect of having a malicious case brought against him by a dishonest customer.
  There are, admittedly, some problems which the honest trader may see in this, as I shall try to show later when I come to explain how we expect the Bill to operate. Some of the risks are imaginary, and others are exaggerated, but in any event, from our point of view, they are not sufficient to outweigh the case for including false oral statements in the Bill. After all, this is a Measure to protect the consumer, and to leave out oral statements would gravely weaken the protection against dishonesty which the Bill is designed to provide.
  Let me turn, now, to the more constructive side of the Bill, that of defining
  680
  trade terms and providing for informative labelling. These are also Molony recommendations, for which everybody concerned in trading activities will, I think, be grateful. There is a lot of confusion about many trade terms, as anybody engaged in this business knows. Many which are in common use have no precise meaning at all. What does one mean by "shrink resistant" as applied to clothing, or "fast" as applied to colours, or "heat-proof" as applied to furniture polish, and so on? One could go through a long list. In fact, a host of trade names are used over the whole enormous field of retail trading, and those which have no precise definition can be, and all too frequently are, used to mislead customers, and, incidentally, they damage the reputation of honest manufacturers.
  In Clause 7, therefore, the Board of Trade is given power to make Orders defining trade terms when it is clearly in the customers' interests to do so. There will, of course, be the fullest consultation with appropriate trade interests before any definition Orders are made. I know that this provision is welcomed by many trade associations, and some are already lining up to make their requests for Orders.
  The need for informative labelling, as distinct from definition of trade terms, is somewhat different. I think it will be agreed that people need to be told, for instance, what to expect from many domestic electric appliances, and how to operate the things to get a safe and satisfactory performance over a reasonable period of time. Hon. Members will know that the Consumer Council is working actively with several manufacturers and trade associations to promote voluntary schemes of informative labelling under the Council's "Teltag" label. We want to encourage the Council in this very useful and valuable work. I think it will be accepted that the more such voluntary schemes there are, the better. But it is not always possible to get voluntary schemes adopted. We are, therefore, seeking the powers in Clause 8 so that if it can be shown that labelling is really needed to protect consumers, we can make the appropriate Orders. Although here again, it is the consumer's interest that decides whether there should be informative labels, this provision is also very much in the interests of reputable manufacturers.

  681
  The power in Clause 8 to impose these labelling requirements naturally includes the power to make origin-marking Orders. The present position about such Orders is unsatisfactory. Under a Merchandise Marks Act passed more than 40 years ago, we can order that imported goods shall be marked as such. But this was, or it has come to be considered by overseas countries as, crude protectionism. And even as a measure of protection it is very unsatisfactory. I shall not elaborate on this, because I am sure that many hon. Members will seek to show how unsatisfactory the present arrangements are.
  We have to do two things here. First, we have to ensure that the imported goods conform, where this is appropriate, to our own requirements as regards trade descriptions and informative labelling. This obviously must be done. Secondly, in bringing the present origin-marking provisions into a better state, we must take account of our international obligations.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: At the moment, in the interests of the country's economy, it has been decided to adopt and pursue a "Buy British" campaign. If the Bill goes through in its present form, and the Government get into even worse trouble when it is introduced, it will be impossible for them to do so.
  Mr. Darling: The "Buy British" campaign has nothing to do with the legal powers that we are taking for ourselves. As I was saying, we must take account of our international obligation. After all, there is no point in Governments signing Conventions and doing nothing about them. This means that we must provide that where we think it is necessary for our people to know the origin of the goods, the requirement shall apply to all such goods, and this includes those made in this country.
  There cannot be any discrimination except in the very special cases to which Clause 10 applies, and I think that the Clause is clear for everybody to follow. No goods to which an Order can be applied can be sold without an indication of origin. I think that this should be a matter of great satisfaction to our overseas training partners.
  682
  The methods of marking, and the conditions in the Orders, will have to be different for different products, so the powers to make Orders are drawn fairly wide. In general, our present thinking is that it will be sensible, wherever practicable, for the Order to require the actual name of the country to be stated. I know that there has been considerable dissatisfaction with the old provisions allowing such marking as "Empire" or "Foreign".
  Hon. Members will see that the powers in Clause 34 will allow us to clear up any doubts about what the proper description of origin is—for example, in the case of goods consigned here through third countries in which only a very modest amount of work or assembly has taken place.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government's intentions are with regard to the powers they propose to take under Clause 8? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are worried about cigarette advertising and would like the Government to enforce labelling warning smokers against the danger of cigarette smoking? Will the Government be able to do this under this Clause?
  Mr. Darling: I think that my hon. Friend should take a good look at the Medicines Bill that was discussed in the House last week. He will see that sort of power lies with the Ministry of Health, not the Board of Trade.
  Now let me deal with the difficult question of misleading prices. I am sure there is general agreement on what we ought to do. We want to stop traders marking prices as being reduced when they have not been reduced, stop them making false claims, stop the "4d. off" racket when this is not a cut of 4d. from a previous price, and stop traders, during a sale, marking something as, say, "39/11d., reduced from 50s." when the previous price was only 30s.
  These practices have been drawn to our attention. A lot of examples have been sent to me by hon. Members as a result of complaints made by their constituents. It is far more widespread than any of us originally realised. We do not want to stop genuine bargain sales. On the contrary, we want to encourage price reductions. But, although we know what we want to do, we have, I must confess,

  683
  run into difficulties about how to deal in a Statute with all the false price claims that we wish to prohibit.
  Clause 11, which deals with this, is now more narrowly drawn than when it appeared in another place where, as hon. Members will know, it was very critically examined. Their Lordships are still dissatisfied with the terms of this Clause, but allowed it to go through on the understanding that was given by the Government that we would try to improve it in Committee of this House. We are trying to find something to add that will be satisfactory and make legal sense. The House will agree that this is a matter that will have to be considered in Committee.
  Before trying briefly to describe how we see the administration of the Bill working out, I should explain that, for the sake of clarity, I have so far confined my remarks to the selling of goods and have not mentioned services. But the House will agree, I think, that this Bill—which we wish to be a basic Statute for many years to come—would be woefully incomplete if it left out services.
  It is true that the Molony Committee made no recommendations on services. It deliberately did not consider services so that it could complete its report in a reasonable time. It certainly did not accept that the position about services was satisfactory. On the contrary, it referred to the "vehement dissatisfaction" which the public had expressed to it about services. So we have brought them in—garages, laundries, travel agencies, hotels, boarding houses, repair establishments and so on—in the same way that false claims for goods have been brought in, but there is an important difference concerning the conditions of a prosecution. In one way or another misrepresentation of goods has been in the Statutes for a long time, but to apply the same laws to services is a legal innovation. Because of this, an offence in regard to services will be committed only where a false statement is made knowingly or recklessly. I think that will be accepted.
  Finally, I will attempt to show how we expect the terms of the Bill to be administered. We do not expect a plethora of prosecutions. Many of the fly-by-night sharp-practice merchants and other
  684
  potential offenders will, we expect, give up their soon-to-be illegal trading practices than risk prosecution. The more reputable traders who perhaps inadvertently fall foul of the law are not likely to be prosecuted, because they will do what most of them do now when they have genuine complaints brought to them: they will quickly provide redress to their complaining customers.
  This is not hypothetical forecast. It is based on practical experience. The main burden of administering the Act will fall on local Weights and Measures authorities, some of whom, for some time, have been operating consumer advisory services very much in line with what they will have to do, but without the sanction of the law, when the Bill is on the Statute Book. I am very grateful to them for giving us the benefit of their valuable experience.
  Naturally—and I do not really need to say this—the authority that took the lead and has been highly successful in this work is Sheffield. Sheffield's Consumer Information and Advisory Service, run by an Inspector in the Weights and Measures Department, is now dealing with about 2,000 complaints or inquiries a year. A very encouraging fact emerges from its three years' experience. In over 90 per cent. of cases of genuine complaints reported by customers against shopkeepers or other traders, the traders have put matters right to the complaining customers' satisfaction without any real trouble—often just in response to a telephone call. This is very encouraging indeed. But, what is more important, even without the sanctions that this Bill provides this Consumer Service has driven many undesirable itinerant traders out of the city. It has not been entirely successful. That is why, among other reasons, we need this Bill.
  The Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures in Sheffield has told me what he thinks about the Bill in a letter which I received a little while ago. Based on his practical experience, he says:
  "The Bill need not cause apprehension and concern for honest traders, because the provisions are to be enforced by local authorities whose Weights and Measures Inspectors never prosecute offences they cannot prove. These officers have a great deal of experience in their dealings with traders and can be relied upon to exercise the maximum discretion."

  685
  In other words, they take the right legal advice before they bring forward a prosecution.
  I am sure that this is right. I am convinced that local authorities' consumer departments—whatever they care to call them—will establish friendly relations with the reputable traders in the area to get matters put right outside the courts, and I am equally convinced that these departments and local traders will work together to put dishonest operators out of business by quickly reporting offences.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My right hon. Friend has rightly referred to the great achievements of local authorities in Sheffield and Bristol in this matter. Can he see any reason why other local authorities should think it necessary or desriable to await the passage of this Bill before they emulate Sheffield and Bristol?
  Mr. Darling: This is a matter for the local authorities to determine. We have no authority even to try to persuade Sheffield, Bristol, and perhaps other places, to set up these departments. They did it largely on their own initiative. We cannot interfere with the views and decisions of local authorities. However, I repeat that I am very grateful to those local authorities who have started off before the Bill becomes law.
  We do not want a spate of unnecessary prosecutions. For this reason we require the Board of Trade to be informed of intending prosecutions for offences on a national scale—certainly for offences that go beyond the area of the local authority concerned—so that we can avoid several prosecutions being launched for what is in fact a single offence.
  Another important reason for our belief that traders and manufacturers need not be apprehensive about having to face a lot of prosecutions is the increasing influence of the Advertising Standards Authority. When it was set up, I was very sceptical about whether it would work and I voiced those scepticisms in the House. I still have reservations about its being called an authority, but, in the past few years, it has persuaded and influenced advertisers, advertising agents and newspaper and magazine publishers to adhere to its strict voluntary code of
  686
  advertising practice. Also, objectionable or misleading advertisements are being kept out of publications. This is all to the good, and the Bill will put sanctions behind the Advertising Standards Authority's control of advertising.
  The Bill is constructive and designed to serve the public interest in what is surely the widest field, since we are all consumers. We all want fair and honest trading in what we buy for our selves and our families and in the services for which we pay. We want value for money and not dishonesty. This Bill is a "shoppers' charter". It will go a long way to ensure that all unfair trading practices will be banned. It will benefit the whole public as consumers and will also prove, I am sure, of great benefit to the vast majority of manufacturers and traders—the honest majority—since it will help to put out of business the small fringe of unscrupulous and disreputable competitors who now disgrace consumer trades and industries. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.2 p.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: The public who do not understand the long tradition of consumer legislation going back generations might find it mildly paradoxical that politicians, who are normally thought to deal in hyperbole and exaggeration, should become so solemn when dealing with the claims and descriptions of traders. They might say, "Doctors, heal thyselves". Nevertheless, even if we approach the Bill and this subject with a due humility, there is a long tradition of trying to protect the honest trader and the consumer. That is why the House is used to this subject.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a generally helpful speech, but there were one or two points in it which I did not relish. One was his implied threat to try to revert, later in the progress of the Bill, to the original, rather electioneering title of what is a very narrow Measure. This is a useful Bill, but it really replaces the Merchandise Marks Acts, as one can see from the Schedule. To widen its purpose into the implications covered by a "Consumer Protection" title goes a little too far. We shall certainly suggest that the Government are electioneering—although they need something to put on their banner—if they try to upset this decision of another place.

  687
  Nor can we accept that there was a lack of interest in the consumer during the 1950s. In fact, in the 1950s, inevitably, a few years after the war, the country moved, under Tory Governments, into a fuller and fuller economy of choice. As this spread, there was naturally a surge of interest in consumer subjects. Some of my hon. Friends and some hon Gentlemen opposite crusaded on the consumers' behalf.
  Behind me is my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) who has to his credit two pamphlets on the subject. From one of them, "A Nation of Customers", I choose the following to explain why the efforts of hon. Members were not fully appreciated:
  "Although it aroused breathtakingly little public interest, the new Weights and Measures Bill "—
  a Measure of the 1950s—
  "was passed during the last Parliament."
  Although these Measures help the public a great deal, they do not arouse widespread interest.
  The Bill is based, above all, on three chapters of the Molony Report, initiated by a Conservative Government, no doubt under pressure from hon. Members on both sides. We therefore welcome the Bill's general purpose. We believe in a free, competitive market economy within a framework of law. We must, therefore, always be vigilant to keep the legal framework up to date and improve it where necessary.
  The protection of the consumer goes back well into the last century as a function of Parliament. I agree with the Minister of State that the vast bulk of manufacturers, distributors and providers of services are honest and thorough, but I also agree that there is always a minute fringe of operators in all these fields, who, to the extent that the law allows, will seek to use or misuse the honourable success of others by misleading descriptions.
  The fundamental problem for legislation of this kind is one of balance, to do justice to the consumer without so overwhelming and overburdening the manufacturer, trader and provider of services that the purpose of the effort is defeated. We must have some humility when contemplating the infinite range of
  688
  goods and services, customers, suppliers and manufacturers, all confronting one another, particularly when the same people are, during the same day, on both sides of the counter.
  There is a baffling tangle of relationships here which we cannot expect to sort out, with the best will in the world, to achieve perfection. We must—I warn the House again—be very careful that, in seeking to protect the consumer, we do not damage the services given to him to such an extent that we defeat our own purposes. We therefore welcome the Bill in principle and most of the changes made in another place, and would like to acknowledge the very hard work which was done there in scrutinising the Bill.
  There is a number of points on which we are still worried. The first pair come in Clauses 2 and 3. The Government will realise that the essence of legislation imposing a range of criminal offences must be clarity, yet at once, in Clause 3, the definition relies upon both subjective and ambiguous criteria. We are told in subsection (1) that a trade description is an offence if it is
  "… false to a material degree …"
  and, in subsection (2), if
  "… though not false, it is misleading …"
  I would remind the Government that the Molony Report, in paragraph 634, was specific about the importance of clarity in these definition Clauses.
  The Report amplified the words
  "false to a material degree"
  by saying:
  "that is to say, broadly, the error must be of such substance that it could fairly be regarded as capable of inducing a purchase."
  In other words, Molony recommended that a definition should be false only if its falseness brought about or achieved the purchase which was made. This is a narrow offence and a narrower definition than that adopted by the Government. We shall at a later stage ask the Government to explain why they have widened the definition so very sharply and made it both subjective and ambiguous.
  Mr. Tony Gardner: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but could he explain how a court could decide that the purchase was made

  689
  only because of description? Surely that would be an impossible task?
  Sir K. Joseph: As a non-practising lawyer, I should have thought that, if a weights and measures inspector went to a shop to make a trial purchase and, after asking for a product, said, "Do let us get it plain. I am buying this because it boils quicker", or, "because it is made of wool". "Does it boil quicker?", or, "Is it made of wool, because that is why I am buying it", and if the assistant said, "Yes", that, if corroborated, would be plain evidence before a court that that assurance achieved that purchase. I should have thought that paragraph 634 of Molony has much substance.
  I come to the very difficult Clause 4(2), which makes a misleading oral statement an offence. Plainly, in the light of paragraph 658 of the Molony Report, we on this side cannot dispute the justice of the Government's case in bringing oral misdescriptions into the Bill in some form. I will come to that in a moment. After all, Molony finds that "oral misdescription is widespread". The Report says:
  "Some of it is merely careless, much of it reckless, and a proportion consciously dishonest."
  In the face of that, we cannot criticise the Government's general decision to bring in oral misdescription.
  However, we strongly question what sort of oral misdescription, or, rather, what sort of people, the Government are out to catch. If they are out to catch the shipwreck dealers, the fly-by-night operators, jolly good luck to them. If these people or doorstep salesmen operate by false oral descriptions, we shall be the first to back the Government in any sensible and effective attempt to catch them. What we are frightened about is that individual decent traders will be so scared of one mistake causing them trouble, ill-repute, or even prosecution, that they will instruct their assistants, who are often school leavers, who are frequently changed, who are often part-time workers, who admittedly will get some training as a result of the Industrial Training Act, but who have not yet had much benefit from that, to give the minimum of help to customers. That would, on balance, injure customers far more than the Bill would help them.
  690
  After all, the Government must recognise that Molony, after all the strong words I have quoted from paragraph 658, recommended—the arguments are fully set out in paragraph 659—that on balance there was no case for legislation at this stage, If we on this side accept that there probably is a case for some very carefully and narrowly designed legislation conceived in a way to catch the flagrant and persistent user of oral false descriptions, surely the Government must do their best in the drafting of the Bill to exclude the bulk of traders who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are honest and seek only to serve the public.
  We ask that the drafting of this part of the Bill should be redefined to make it clear that the people whom the Government seek to catch are the persistent and flagrant offenders, or those who go about deliberately to exploit the public in some such ways as the right hon. Gentleman discussed. If the Government do not do this, there is a real danger that the service to the public will be damaged and not improved.
  Clauses 7–9 empower the Board of Trade to make definition orders. Molony recommended that the Board of Trade should take these powers for goods but not for advertising. In paragraph 758 the Molony Committee makes it plain that it accepts
  "as a fact of commercial life that the promotion of the brand name is here to stay…. Nor do we think it realistic to suppose that the consequent reduction in, if not elimination of, factual information in advertisements can be overcome."
  Molony recommends that it is not practicable for the Government to make regulations to cover advertising.
  The Government have decided otherwise. Yet the Minister of State, who is an experienced man in the commercial field, will be the first to acknowledge that the Government are not experts in advertising. He has openly and unambiguously told the House that the Government accept that persuasive advertising has its part to play in a market economy. Yet the Government take by Clause 9 very wide powers indeed to apply regulations to the contents of advertising—advertising which is often of a very complicated and sophisticated nature.

  691
  It is true that by a later Clause the Government bind themselves to hold consultations. We suggest that the Government would be wise to narrow the powers they take in Clause 9. Admittedly, in another place the Government spokesman said that Clause 9 powers would be used sparingly. We ask that these powers be narrowed and that, because of the technical nature of much advertising nowadays—for instance, on television—the bodies consulted under Clause 36 should include, not only the usual interests, but also in suitable cases some advertising body so that the Government may be alive to the technical consequences of any regulations they may make.
  I come now to what is probably the most difficult part of the Bill for any effective legislation—that is, Clause 11, this tangled question of double pricing. It is true that Molony recommend in paragraph 636 that double pricing should come within the ambit of any legislation. There is a danger, as Clause 11 if drafted at present, that the Government will achieve precisely the opposite of their own objectives and will open the door wide for the sharp operator and make life extremely tough for the vast bulk of honest traders.
  We are comforted by the Minister of State's repetition that the Government are seeking to redraft this difficult Clause. We would have been more comforted if they had achieved a redraft during the last two weeks. We await eagerly to see what sort of redraft they will achieve. We must all accept that bargain sales, genuine promotions with price reductions, genuine price comparisons, both with what the trader has previously sold the goods at and with what other traders are selling the goods at, all help the public. I have used the word "genuine". The difficulty is to sort these out from the misleading cases. We recognise that it is very difficult.
  The Government have made their job very hard. First, they have used a most ambigous word "recommended". It is said that it is legitimate for a trader to compare the price of his goods with "a recommended price". What on earth is "a recommended price"? We all know that there are honourable and
  692
  legitimate recommended prices. We all know that recommended prices have dwindled in number since the Resale Price Maintenance Act, but a recommended price could be one that the trader has himself suggested to the manufacturer as giving him a wide margin. It could be stamped on deliberately for that purpose by the manufacturer. It could be a very different thing from goods from reputable manufacturers with the words "threepence off" printed on them genuinely designed to carry a reduction through the retailer to the public.
  We ask that the Government should re-examine this Clause with all the expert help they can get to make sure that the Clause does protect proper bargains, proper sales, proper special promotions, and does not protect the operator—be he manufacturer or distributor—who arranges for his own convenience a so-called recommended price below which he purports to give a very big reduction to the public.
  If the Government find the task of redrafting too difficult, I suggest that they should fall back on what was recommended by the Molony Committee, which to the layman seems a simple and effective solution. The implication of what Molony suggested would appear to recommend the addition of a new paragraph to Clause 2(1), a paragraph (k), which would add to the definition of a trade description, comparison with "a former or usual price". There would be no use of the word "recommended" and there would be a much narrower and possibly more effective technique.
  On Clause 15, on which the right hon. Gentleman spent some time, we shall seek to probe to what extent powers will protect British traders from so-called Commonwealth goods, particularly in the toy trade. I am picking out the main problems as they appear to me, but many of my hon. Friends may have other major worries. Clause 21 appears to be a very complicated Clause. It seems to be intended broadly to provide that proceedings should not be instituted under this Bill if they could also be properly brought under the 1963 Weights and Measures Act. Do the Government not realise that there is a similar overlap which could occur between the powers under this Trade Descriptions Bill and the Medicines Bill which is now before

  693
  the House? Will the Government give an assurance that one or both these Bills will be amended so as to preclude the possibility of a trader being prosecuted under two Acts for the same alleged offence?
  I understand that as a result of an Amendment in another place Clause 23(2) introduces the third party and by-passing procedure of the Weights and Measures and the Food and Drugs Acts into the Bill. To this extent we find it very satisfactory. Apart from that, Clause 23 provides a new and different defence. There are defences available under the Merchandise Marks Acts. We would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, could tell us why the Government have changed the defences from what they used to be and whether they are satisfied about having done this. Manufacturers rely on being able to protect the quality of their products. If the defences under the old Merchandise Marks Acts have been changed by Clause 23, manufacturers should know why the Government have done this, so that at a later stage we can subject the change to any criticism which seems to be needed.
  I turn to Clause 25 and the whole question of enforcement. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the main duty falls on weights and measures authorities. At the moment different local authorities use different departments. There is now such a mass of different laws protecting different aspects of consumers' purchases—food and drugs, agricultural products, medicines and other goods and services covered by this Bill—that we wonder whether there will be a case for the Government to give guidance to local authorities as to where their main methods of supervision should lie so that there is uniformity of treatment.
  We are delighted that the very effective Retail Trade Standards Association will be able to continue. Inadvertently, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman did the Association less than credit. He said that it is only sometimes successful, but I believe that in fact it has been successful in 49 of the 50 prosecutions it has brought. The Association has also intervened in scorces more cases than it has prosecuted. It got a very warm tribute from the Molony Committee in paragraph 684.
  694
  Obviously traders are worried that the power of the ordinary member of the public to bring prosecutions will expose the genuine trader to occasional frivolous or malicious prosecutions by customers or by ex-employees. I suppose that the mere costs of such a proceeding would be a protection for the trader. I presume that legal aid would not be given unless there were some form of corroboration. I suppose that usually a matter would go through the Citizens Advice Bureau to the weights and measures authority who would make a purchase before bringing a case.
  I go back to Clause 4. It would be helpful if the Government were to show that they were out to catch the flagrant and persistent offender and that weights and measures authorities would bring prosecutions only where there is evidence of consistent misbehaviour or flagrant misbehaviour on more than one occasion. That would be a great comfort because traders would realise that there would be a warning and perhaps more than one warning before there was danger of prosecution.
  Subject to these points and those which my hon. Friends will raise, we think that in general this is capable of becoming a useful Bill although the Government have still a great deal of explaining and naturally a great deal of improving—which is normal at this stage of a Bill's life—to do. We welcome the Government's readiness to recognise that rigid measures in this field are counter-productive and would do the consumer more harm than good. We recognise that abuses do exist and we want to help the Government to prevent the public being damaged by them.
  There are still parts of the Bill which concern us greatly. Therefore it is only subject to some changes which we do not despair of persuading the Government to consider that we give this Bill our support on Second Reading. We do not think the Bill if it is improved in the ways we suggest should hurt the honest supplier or dealer. We think it should give the consumer and the honest seller some genuine protection against the few who are less scrupulous. We very much hope that the Government will take seriously the points I have made and which my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will

  695
  make. We hope that this Bill will finish as a beneficial Measure.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking in the debate, particularly since my right hon. Friend has worked so hard in this field for such a long time. I congratulate him on having the chance to introduce the Bill.
  I have one or two reservations which, strangely enough, I seem to have in common with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). We all welcome the Bill, but we are very worried about Clause 11, which is subject to a great deal of criticism from a wide variety of well-informed people. I do not say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the final form in which I should like to see the Bill, but I agree that it should be redrafted.
  The Retail Trading-Standards Association, which has done a remarkably good job under the Merchandise Marks Acts, is very worried about Clause 11. It says:
  "In its latter stages in the House of Lords the Bill has been somewhat emasculated and some of its teeth now show signs of decay."
  That is the first time I have heard the other place described as a sort of dentist's surgery, but it has certainly done some dentistry on the Bill, which is the worse for its actions. The Association also says:
  "Clause 11 (dealing with comparative prices) has been so re-drafted as to horrify those with practical experience of the problems involved. At the same time provisions for defence have been so widened as to provide great encouragement to potential sinners."
  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may say "Nonsense", but it will be for him to prove that in Committee. I agree wholeheartedly with the Association's next observation, which is:
  "To replace the Merchandise Marks Act with weaker legislation would indeed be a tragedy."
  There is not much point in substituting for a perfectly good Act one which is weaker, and on that point, I share the hopes of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman.
  Perhaps I should start by considering the problems which we have in common. For a long time I was subjected to considerable
  696
  correspondence regarding the s.s. "Aire", which sank in 1958. Alleged salvaged carpets from it were still being sold in 1966, and the advertisements kept coming up over and over again. An even more classic example is now beginning the rounds. I say that even though it started about 16 months ago, because to judge by the s.s. "Aire" experience it is just starting. It concerns a mythical mill called the Dickinson Mill, which in December 1966 was selling bedding bales "regardless of cost". Last November it was still selling them regardless of cost, and in December, according to the Retail Trading-Standards Association—and I have checked this in newspapers in the North-West—it was selling them because devaluation had compelled it to close. No hon. Member would disagree that that type of thing should be eliminated. We have that in common, but we might have disagreements over other forms of advertising, a question which is near and dear to my heart, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware.
  The confectionery industry does a great deal of advertising, and I do not object to that. It constantly argues that its products are new—new this and new that—and I do not necessarily object to that either. But when it advertises bars weighing less than 3 ozs., for which it does not have to publish the weight, it should be morally honest enough to admit in its extensive advertising that it has reduced the weight of the bar. In the main, that type of product is purchased by poorer people or children, and there should be legislation to protect them. This is a matter with which the advertising industry could itself deal. Last year there were over 100 examples of products being reduced in weight without any of us being aware that this had happened. The honourable thing for the industry to do is to acknowledge that there has been a reduction.
  The second realm of advertising about which I have grave misgivings is the type which seeks to sell by the use of a descriptive word, descriptive in the sense that it is comparative and superlative, the medium, the large, the giant, and the family—[An HON. MEMBER: "Jumbo."] I have not come across that one. I must tell my wife about it. The remarkable thing is that if one wants to know the

  697
  meaning of those expressions—and I have tabled a Question to the Board of Trade on the matter—one will require a conversion table because of the variety of products. One should go shopping with it to know that giant in "Daz" is equivalent to something else in another product.
  Reputable traders have been defended today by both sides of the House. They deserve protection and are to be admired and encouraged. But remember that we have left the realm of the sinking of the s.s. "Aire" and the Dickinson Mill and are in the realm of the people of integrity, the very people carrying out these procedures with the blessing of the Board of Trade, which should be the custodian of the interests of the housewife and small purchaser. The Board of Trade is falling a long way behind the required high standards.
  I should like to give the House the benefits of some of my recent research on toothbrushes, which illustrates the way in which one can twist an argument. Considerable inducements and prizes have recently been offered to retailers to stock certain products. The inducements to stock them include Japanese typewriters, cigarette lighters, Premium Bonds and a whole host of things which I advisedly call "bribes" to retailers. Competition is curtailed by means of a bribe, because the moment a retailer overstocks with one product he is unlikely to buy another.
  But that is not the sum total of my research. When I went into this matter closely, I was assured that having offered the bribe the toothbrush manufacturers concerned were justified in raising their prices from 1s. 8d. to 2s. It seems peculiar morality to me that they gave the explanation that the price rise was because of considerable research into producting a plastic which would not melt in hot water. So far I have approached 850 people to find out if they have ever had a toothbrush which has melted in hot water. May I quickly continue my studies in the Chamber? Will any hon. Member tell me whether he or she has had a toothbrush which has melted in hot water?
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Try the Strangers' Gallery.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I gather that I am forbidden to do that.
  698
  My researches have gone further. I have found that, with no evidence, the Board of Trade has accepted that explanation and said that it is a good reason for raising the price. The Board of Trade has a responsibility to the consumer and if poor reasons are advanced it should refute them, neck and crop, no matter where they come from.
  The other classic example of gross misleading is the selling of detergents with a mythical, invisible free half-pound. One is told that there is a free half-pound, but one's wife says, "That's a lie for a start. It is the same size as last week." One then returns to the shop and asks where the free half-pound is and the reply is that it is in the packet. One's wife says, "It is the same weight as last week", and they say, "We cannot help that. It is a free half-pound." Then one writes to the manufacturer and gets all sorts of peculiar reasons. It is signicant that products which are not advertised and which are virtually identical are very much cheaper in price, and this is something to be noted carefully by the Board of Trade. Clause 11 will be the issue upon which both sides of the House will be joined and I hope that we can produce a workmanlike and worthwhile provision.
  I want now to spend a short time on a part of the Bill which I completely welcome as the application of the law to the protection of people in using services. This is an activity in which the ordinary person often gets a raw deal. Hon. Members will no doubt know the sort of thing involved—"three minutes from the sea", if one goes by jet. Then there is the "cordon-bleu cuisine ". This turns out to be cheese and onion crisps, a wet lettuce and a slice of ham. That sort of claim in advertising should be stopped. It is more and more important to give protection on the services side because more and more of people's income is being spent on services. I am glad that both sides of the House welcome the tightening up of this part of the Bill.
  I welcome the Bill and in Committee I shall fight hard to ensure that Clause 11 is tightened up severely. I wish my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary every success with the Bill, which was so ably started by her mother in another place.
  5.41 p.m.
  Sir Lionel Heald: I am sure that the House is interested in what the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) has been telling us. I cannot contribute to the tooth-brush saga but, from the point of view of the terms of the Bill, I have no doubt that what he has been saying will be of great importance in Committee. I want to refer to a more fundamental aspect of this Measure.
  Anyone who has had experience—one might say the misfortune to have the experience—of the Merchandise Marks Act as it is administered in the courts will agree that the Molony Report has done a great service in enabling that rather dark corner of the law to be cleared up. My impression of the Bill is that, so long as the Government stick to Molony, it is very good. But it is strange that they did not stick to Molony all through. I do not want to wear the House with legal matters but it is right to be clear about what the Government have and have not done.
  The definition of a false trade description in Clause 2 and Clause 3 is excellent. These provisions are quite clear and simple and they are Molony proposals. It is worth remembering that the Molony Report said that, under existing law, the definition was very uncertain. Anyone who has had to deal with it would confirm that, because there were two or three different sub-headings of definition and one often found the defendant proving that otherwise he had acted innocently.
  For generations the courts have been trying to decide what that meant and I was pleased when the Molony Committee recommended that the best way of dealing with it was to scrap it, and now it has gone. Thus, what I have referred to so far is well understood. But now we find that someone else has been at work so that the matter has now, I am afraid become more complicated than it ever was before. Clause 3 begins with the words
  "A false trade description is a trade description which is false to a material degree."
  The word, "a material degree" were emphasised by Molony as being valuable in order to give the effect of limiting the offence to a case where there is some-
  700
  thing which has had material effect on the purchase. We understand that, but subsection (2) says:
  "A trade description which, though not false, is misleading, that is to say, likely to be taken for such an indication of any of the matters specified in section 2 of this Act as would be false to a material degree, shall be deemed to be a false trade description."
  Where that comes from, I do not know but I have an idea where some people think that it should go to. It is an unfortunate example of what is happening in the drafting of Statutes. No one has greater admiration than I for the craft of the Parliamentary draftsmen. How they do their work I have never been able to understand. I have always found that part of legislating extremely difficult. They do a wonderful job. But the trouble is that they have become such perfectionists that they will not leave a word like "misleading" to the courts.
  The only thing misleading here lies in the effect of the words "though not false", for this is likely to be thought of by many people as merely meaning that which may not be false. We should not put such a burden on the courts. We should not put traders into the danger of having a clever lawyer arguing all day, with the judge finally saying, "I have not read anything like this before. I suppose that this must mean something much wider than anything one would really regard as false". Thus, one gets into the subjective area condemned by the Molony Report—that is to say, one considers what might be thought by someone else.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned the judges, but 99 per cent. of these cases appear before lay magistrates. It may be difficult for a judge, but for the lay magistrate to enter into these complications is impossible.
  Sir L. Heald: I have pointed out that even a judge might make a mistake over this and the difficulties of magistrates will be vastly greater. However, I shall not enlarge upon the point.
  Another example of departure from Molony is in the provisions dealing with services. As the hon. Member for Eccles has clearly shown, the inclusion of services is needed but we must remember that Mr. Molony said that he did not

  701
  have the time to go into this and that, if he had tried to make a hasty report on it, he might have got into great difficulty. Have the Government conducted any inquiry enabling them to draw up these provisions about services? It is strange that, although the definition I have mentioned refers to the whole Bill—so that when one first reads the Measure one thinks there is a complete answer—one soon discovers, when one reaches the provisions dealing with services, that there is another hurdle to clear.
  There is quite a different section, with a quite different wording. There is all this business about recklessness. In Clause 13(la,b) it says that it shall be an offence for any person in the course of any trade or business:
  "… to make a statement which he knows to be false: or recklessly to make a statement which is false."
  We can accept that and the magistrate or judge can deal with it. Then we find in Clause 13(2):
  "For the purposes of this section—
  (a) anything (whether or not a statement as to any of the maters specified in the preceding subsection) likely to be taken for such a statement as to any of those matters as would be false shall be deemed to he a false statement as to that matter …"
  There is that miserable business of "deeming", which has been condemned over an over again by the courts. When one wants to catch someone in a tax question one says that, if necessary, Wednesday shall be deemed to be Thursday, for the purposes of finding that this man is lying. What is the use of adding that "shall be deemed" except to make it more vague and, I would say, to cause alarm?
  What about the small trader who says, "I have read this section. What is all this stuff about something being likely to be thought by somebody to be false when it is not false?" We ought not to put people in that peril. There is considerable doubt as to whether we ought to be prepared to go forward with this situation.
  Mr. Burden:Would my right hon. and learned Friend give his attention to Clause 23(1,b)?
  Sir L. Heald:That is actually taken from the Food and Drugs Act and is not quite so bad as that which I have been
  702
  reading. I find it difficult to know what are the limits of Clause 35, which says that if one is doing what is called a "market research experiment" one can make as many false statements as one likes and encourage others to do so, and everyone will be very happy. Does that cover the case when someone wants to get someone else to make a false statement, in order to show how many people misunderstand the situation? What is the situation? It seems to be rather strange. There is not a word about it in Molony, and we heard nothing about it on Second Reading.
  I am not being hostile to the Bi11 in any sense, but it is a dangerous thing, when one has an excellent Report like Molony, not to base the legislation on it, but instead to add to it by other rather less considered means. We have considered Molony in relation to the oral matter, and this danger is added to when one remembers that the subsection which I have been criticising is something which would be applied in connection with oral statements—these quasi-falsities. It seems that someone will be in a difficult position if he is to take responsibility for statements made by his employers.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Haseldine: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments. This Bill will be readily welcomed by consumers, but only when they are fully aware of the protection afforded by it. The Co-operative movement, which has championed the cause of the consumer throughout its long history, gives a general welcome to this Bill, as do many local authorities, especially those which have gone to the trouble of opening departments.
  Over the years many of us have been engaged, before and after Molony, in preaching consumer protection through the educational services of the Cooperative movement. We have endeavoured to organise public opinion in short courses, lectures, weekend schools and publications. We have been patient. It is well over five years since the first report of the Committee on Consumer Protection was issued.
  It is with some regret and misgiving that I find that this Bill is given the title

  703
  of Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill. Despite what has been said, I hope that we shall be able to restore its earlier title, the Consumer Protection Bill. It may be asked: what is in a name? I believe that the measures set out are fundamentally intended to protect the consumer and the public at large, and that they will react more favourably, making use of the provisions of the measure if it appears with its correct title, related to its true purpose. In itself the title will foster better public relations.
  Although we have waited over five years for the complete implementation of the Report, during this period we have seen two very significant recommendations of the Molony Report. First of all there was the setting up of the Consumer Council and the establishment of consumer protection and advisory services within local authorities. Many of us welcome Clause 25, placing upon the weights and measures authority the duty to enforce the provisions of the Bill.
  I have the good fortune to represent a city that has taken this matter seriously and has not hesitated to take action in serious cases, fully accepting its responsibility towards consumers. Similarly I know that many other authorities, not least my native city of Sheffield, have set about this task and, like Bradford, have a very impressive record. In line with my desire to see the Bill become the Consumer Protection Bill, I would hope that all local authorities would earnestly consider having, as part of their weights and measures departments or standards departments, a consumer protection and advisory service, which can be used freely by members of the public. This would draw the attention of the public to the protection afforded and serve as an important publicity agency.
  Some people will still ask if the consumer needs protection. There is ample evidence that, even though the consumer should be aware or beware, he is more likely to seek action, frequently belatedly, if he knows that he has the backing of the law. It has been made clear time and time again what a good job it is that he has the law on his side. Without question, the Bill reinforces and extends the law into an area where even local authorities have had insufficient powers in the past.
  704
  One of the greatest needs for action arises in Clause 7, which deals with a problem that worries the consumer continually and features prominently in reports from local authorities which are engaged in consumer protection and advice. It concerns the moisture content in solid smokeless fuels. It need hardly be said that the introduction of smokeless zones inevitably has made the consumer more conscious of the cost of keeping warm. Though personal temperatures may rise rapidly, there is cold comfort in seeing a load of expensive fuel described by a trade name oozing with water. In some parts of the country, 16s. or more is paid per cwt., and one expects to get value for money. Following a point about it which I made in my constituency, I received numerous letters from all over the country. Many users of smokeless fuel are paying as much as 3s. 4d. per cwt. for the water content of the fuel. This is a matter that I hope to present to the House in greater detail on another occasion, when I shall ask the Minister of Power to throw some light and perhaps less water on the subject.
  I hope that he will soon be in a position to determine standards for some of the fuels not yet covered by British Standards. I hope, too, that the publication of Part 3 of British Standard 3142 will not be long delayed, because that will enable my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to apply Clause 7 of the Bill. At the moment, there are standards for cokes for domestic open fires and cokes for domestic closed appliances in Parts 1 and 2 of British Standard 3142. The remaining part dealing with smokeless fuels is of great importance, but, meantime, it is most appropriate to Clause 7.
  I turn now to Clause 11, which is also welcome. I was pleased to note that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to doorstep carpet selling, which is a growing practice particularly on our new housing estates. One case which came to my notice concerned a leaflet which was circulated together with a reply paid postcard indicating that carpets were for sale at cost price with free fitting and free underlay. The dealer's representative called on a lady who replied to the circular. He showed her patterns, and she placed an order for carpet at 65s. a

  705
  yard. After the carpet had been laid, the purchaser discovered that she had paid considerably more than the local price for the same quality and a similar pattern costing between 38s. 6d. and 41s. a yard. Action by the local authority secured a cash refund, with the result that the lady eventually paid 40s. a yard. This was after the local authority had taken the matter up with the dealer and threatened exposure. I would remind hon. Members that the carpet was advertised at what was called cost price.
  Another practice which is not unusual at Christmas-time is that of offering Christmas hampers. One case which my own local authority investigated closely offered hampers with such tempting slogans as "Fabulous Xmas Offer Hampers." A check showed that a hamper featured as a
  "Super Christmas Box packed with good things—better than ever value—excellent value at 36s. 9d. but only 35s. through our club",
  contained goods to the value of 32s. 9d., and not 36s. 9d. or the knocked-down price of 35s. In addition, the goods were packed in a plain and not a fancy box. I cite both those cases as examples of investigations carried out by the standards department of the Bradford local authority.
  A further case which would be dealt with under Clause 5 concerned a clock which was advertised and sold as an eight-day clock but which was found to run only for 75 hours. It was suggested that it had some sort of fault, and another clock was given in exchange for it. The replacement would not run for eight days, either, and in fact it was found to be impossible for such a clock to run for eight days because the mainspring was not designed for it. Again, action by the local authority obtained a replacement clock which was more appropriate to the description.
  While hon. Members will recognise that this method of selling can be of great help to the elderly and the sick especially, it is always advisable for a prospective purchaser to invite reputable traders in the locality to give a quotation so that he can make some comparison. Clause 11 will provide protection if a false indication is given concerning a price which is quoted for goods.
  706
  I turn briefly to Clause 13, which deals with services, accommodation or facilities. In a Second Reading debate it is important to look at some of the anomalies and problems in proposed legislation.
  Currently, I am engaged in investigating a case which is a good example of the sort of misleading statements made about holidays. It concerns an advertisement which appeared in a quality Sunday newspaper encouraging the unattached to enjoy Christmas at a house party at Namur, Belgium, in the glowing atmosphere of a former seventeenth century chateau, with a programme which would follow the lines of English parties, plus optional excursions to make Christmas a memorable experience.
  A memorable experience indeed it proved to be. Not only did the manager of the hotel with the glowing atmosphere laugh when the contents of the English brochure were translated to him, but the unfortunate guests at the house party found that not even Christmas dinner had been arranged to be taken at the hotel. Instead, they were invited to spend Christmas day, at their own expense, in Brussels, and were offered a free bottle of wine in exchange for the meals of the day if they would do that.
  I could delay the House for a considerable time reciting the experience of those unfortunate people who went on this Christmas holiday, but I do not propose to do so. This organisation appears to trade under three different names. It closed its advertised address on the date of the departure of the party to Belgium. It used the A.B.T.A. symbol on its advertising. I have no intention of implicating the A.B.T.A. They spoke to me readily when I raised the matter with them, but I was told that the organisation's membership of A.B.T.A. ceased about the time when the person who brought the case to me paid his deposit. We have failed so far in correspondence to get anything other than excuses that the principal of the organisation is abroad. It is not my intention to name the organisation concerned. I am prepared to wait a little longer for an explanation but, should no explanation and understanding be reached, I shall not hesitate to seek an opportunity to address the House further on this matter and reveal the name of the organisation.

  707
  I have recited some case histories which, in my view, fully justify the relevant Clauses to which I have made reference. I welcome the Bill. I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister of State of my support for these measures, which I am sure will receive the support of the whole House.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I hope the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) will forgive me if I do not follow him closely. I feel that there is some impression that nothing has been done in the past to protect the public from false or misleading statements about merchandise. This is quite untrue, and many of us were in the House when my right hon. Friend led on the Merchandise Marks Act, 1963, which put much more bite into this subject than ever existed in legislation before. Everybody here will give general approval to any efforts that may be made in still further improving the situation. In particular, this legislation is aimed at bringing together and consolidating into a new Act the Merchandise Marks legislation introduced between 1887 and 1953. Molony made it clear that any new legislation that was introduced ought to be of such a simple character that it would be clearly understood by the vast number of people to whom it might apply, and who, under its provisions, might find themselves before the courts.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out—because of his special legal knowledge—that in several ways the present Bill does not conform to this requirement of the Molony Committee. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind during the remaining stages of the Bill and do his best to ensure that it is simplified as much as possible. Whilst giving reasonable attention to the consumer, we must not make impossible demands or impose unduly harsh penalties on manufacturers or intermediate traders, or create a situation in which the risk of a person innocently breaking the law automatically finding himself branded as a criminal or involved in the tiresome and costly business of proving himself innocent in the courts. I submit that as the Bill now stands there is a considerable danger of this.
  708
  The Bill, based on Molony, was given very careful scrutiny in another place, which is illustrated by the fact that about 90 Amendments were put down. Whilst admitting and appreciating this, it in no way releases this House from the responsibility of giving the Bill another close examination to insure that its provisions are fair, equitable and workable.
  Since 1953 when the last Merchandise Marks Act was introduced, consumer merchandising in this country has undergone radical—one might almost say revolutionary—changes. Television advertising was not introduced until two years after the last Merchandise Marks Act—that was on 22nd September, 1955. It was a revolutionary new method of advertising, combining the illustration with animation and speech delivered right into the home. Of course it had an enormous impact on merchandising and the Government have illustrated the effect it had by saying that it has persuaded or induced people to smoke cigarettes, which is damaging to health, and that it shall no longer be allowed. This is a mark of the importance of this new medium of television advertising.
  It is interesting to recall the first advertisements on that day. They were for toothpaste, drinking chocolate, margarine, motor spirit, tyres and beef extract—nothing that lends itself too much to exaggeration. But this, of course, has come along with various other commodities. Television put into the hands of the manufacturer and advertiser is the almost perfect medium to induce impulse buying. Many people, I believe, doubted the wisdom of introducing the medium into this country for that reason.
  I should like to know whose is the responsibility in future under this Bill if there is a false or misleading statement about the merchandise advertised. Is it to be the responsibility of the originator of the advertisement? Is it to be the advertising company, or is it to be the television authority because they put it on? This subject should be given some consideration. The medium can be used more persuasively and unscrupulously than probably any other medium for advertising or merchandising.
  However, although some of the "puffs" used on television may be highly

  709
  exaggerated—and perhaps the Bill will ensure that they are not so exaggerated in future—this is a medium which is generally used with responsibility by those who occupy the screen.
  Mr. David Crouch: May I remind my hon. Friend that there is a statutory responsibility on the Independent Television Authority and that executive action is taken by the independent television companies to vet every commercial advertisement before it is allowed to be;creened? This is a very strict control. It is to that that we owe so much.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Bill will change many things regarding advertising and false descriptions. It is right and proper that we should know those who are responsible. Otherwise, people may be wrongly prosecuted under the Bill.
  Another medium which has grown tremendously since the last Merchandise Marks Act—indeed, it has made great strides since the Molony Committee was set up—is mail order. Here there are opportunities for unscrupulous exploitation of the consumer, because the consumer buys purely against illustration and the persuasive wording of highly-skilled copywriters. In many instances, the critical faculties of the buyer are perhaps somewhat blunted by the fact that many mail order sales incorporate credit terms which may blur people's judgment of values.
  I make no widespread allegations in this matter. On the contrary, I wish to make it perfectly clear that the vast majority of mail order houses are highly responsible and reputable. Most of them are large organisations which submit all the merchandise which they supply to the closest scrutiny, as they do in their advertisements and the conditions of sale and particularly their description of the merchandise. We have moved into another new area of merchandising since 1953 which illustrates the wisdom of introducing legislation to deal with the conditions and circumstances of today.
  I refer to the enormous growth of prepackaging and the dangers of it. The House will agree, I think, that a vast amount of merchandise is attractively pre-packed. There is no opportunity for the buyer, particularly the man and
  710
  woman shopper, to apply to it the old shopping tests which applied in the past and to handle and compare the merchandise. That is impossible, because the goods are enclosed in attractive packaging and cannot be readily broken. The fact is, however, that if one article were put alongside another and one was not quite as well packed as the other, although the value was probably a little better, the article which was most attractively packed would attract the shopper. This illustrates the need for ensuring that an accurate description of the merchandise is put on the wrapper.
  I agree that deliberately false and misleading descriptions should be the subject of heavy penalties. The penalties in the Bill are quite heavy—a fine of up to £400 on summary conviction, or up to two years or a fine on conviction on indictment, or both. We do not want draconian penalties to be imposed on the fool or the person who makes a genuine error or who cannot know. As the Bill is drafted, there is the danger of that happening. Clause 1 makes it clear that anyone guilty of applying
  "a false trade description to any goods; or (b) supplies or offers"
  for sale
  "any goods to which a false … description is applied; shall … be guilty of an offence".
  This is a provision of strict liability, whether the offender be the manufacturer, the intermediate supplier or the village shopkeeper.
  The village shop is perhaps the prime example of a shop which has a large amount of pre-packed goods and the shopkeeper cannot possibly know whether what is declared on the package or by the manufacturer is true. They have not the experience or knowledge to know that by testing. The responsibility of the shopkeeper, and the retailer, should be put into proper perspective, which is not done in the Bill.
  Mr. Gardner: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, but is not his point covered in that part of the Bill dealing with defences which refers to the default of another person?
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come to that.
  It cannot be the Government's intention to make it virtually impossible to

  711
  prove a defence, given that all the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 23(1) have to be fulfilled. May I refer to the phrase "due diligence", which appears in Clause 23(1,b)? A person may take all reasonable precautions to ensure that he does not break the law, but how, in addition, is he to exercise "due diligence". What exactly does that mean? Is he meant to open the package in which the merchandise is confined to see whether it complies with the description on the outside? I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that we may have gone too far and that to have only the words "all reasonable precautions" would be satisfactory.
  It must be right to modify the Bill so that the heavy punishment which it provides apply only when there is reasonable proof that a false trade description has been given intentionally or recklessly, and I notice that the word "recklessly" is included in the provisions which deal with services. Why can it not be used in the Clause which deals with general merchandise? Will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter careful consideration?
  Mr. Darling Mr. Darling indicated assent.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that he will.
  Clause 4 provides that for his defence and advertising agent has only to prove that he received the offending advertisement in the ordinary course of business and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence. The wise advertising agent will get a letter from his client taking responsibility for the material in the advertisement, for that will give him a complete defence.
  Clause 32(b) exempts trade marks registered before the passing of the Bill from the risk of prosecution. It seems unfair to extend exemption only to existing trade marks when the Trade Marks Register provides a separate classification of marks which do not have a descriptive element and which are not likely to be taken as misleading, such as those specified in paragraph (a). The exemption should be extended to new trade
  712
  marks registered after a period of seven years during which there has been no dispute about misrepresentation.
  The right hon. Gentleman touched on another matter of considerable importance. It is intended that three years after the Royal Assent has been given to the Bill, it shall no longer be necessary for imports to be marked with the country of origin, or to be marked "Foreign" or "Empire made", so that there will be no distinction between goods made abroad and those made in the United Kingdom. I know that the Molony Committee said that it saw no true virtue in this marking. On the other hand, it saw nothing against it. The Government may have other views, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the textile industry, in which I am engaged, views with considerable concern the intention to remove from imported textiles a clear indication that they have not been manufactured in the United Kingdom. Even if there is no real risk, many people would like to know whether the merchandise which they buy has come from abroad, or been manufactured in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Darling: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has studied this part of the Bill as closely as he may have studied other parts. We are strengthening these provisions. The transitional period of three years is to keep things going, if need be, while the new methods of marking imported goods come into operation.
  Mr. Burden: May I take it from that helpful intervention that there is no long-term intention of removing the indication of the country of origin, or the indication that goods are foreign?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has not listened carefully to what I was saying. In future, assuming that the case is made out for marking goods with the country of origin, instead of being marked "Foreign" they will have to be marked, "Made in Portugal", or "Made in Hong Kong", or "Made in West Germany", or wherever it may be. That is the way in which we intend to do it, but this is a matter for discussion. As I said in my speech, different circumstances will determine the precise way in which it is done.
  Mr. Burden: That is most encouraging. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be reminded of that undertaking and we shall do our utmost to persuade him that it is wise to take the steps which he has suggested might be taken.
  It should be made clear that Clause 6 refers to goods offered to the public and does not apply the powers of the weights and measures inspectors to wholesalers and that it is not necessary for them to deal with false descriptions until the point at which the goods are in the shops. If that is done and if the precautions necessary to protect the retailer are laid down, ally prosecution resulting from a false description by the manufacturer or the intermediary will come home to him through reports made at the point of sale to the public, and it will be easy to lodge the prosecution at the point where the offence originated. Apart from those matters to which I should like the right hon. Member to give attention, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, in general I give the Bill a considerable welcome.
  6.38 p.m
  Mr. Tony Gardner: I am sure that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will forgive me if I do not comment on all he said, although I agreed with much of it. I certainly agree that at this stage we should not engage in an argument about who did what or who did not do what for consumer protection. We have been waiting for the Bill for a long time under both Governments. It is noticeable that it took a long time after the agitation for the setting up of the Molony Committee to implement its recommendations. I suspect that one of the reasons is that manufacturers, advertisers, retailers and wholesalers have the constant ear of the Government, whereas the consumer does not always have that ear, or at least, until recently, has not shouted into it loudly enough. I hope that we can all welcome the Bill at long last and do what we can to improve it.
  Nor do I want to quarrel with my hon. (Mr. Haseldine) with whom I share a great deal in common—not least, the high cost of living in a certain part of South-West London. Unlike him, I am not very unhappy about the change in the name of this legislation in another place. A rose
  714
  by any other name, albeit a belated rose, is none the less welcome. I am much more concerned with what the Bill provides than with its title.
  In welcoming the Bill I ought also to declare a personal interest, since before I entered the House I was responsible for the development of consumer educational services in the Co-operative movement and in that capacity shared, I hope, a not inconsiderable part in the agitation for further action. The Co-operative movement can claim to have been the first in the field in seeking to educate the consumer. It was a great pleasure subsequently to see local authorities and other bodies continuing the job which we began.
  That interest led me to the general conclusion about consumer legislation that there is probably a limit to what the law can do to protect stupid people from making stupid mistakes. Given that we maintain our vigilance on matters of health and safety, the Bill is probably—at least, I hope that it is—the last of this line of consumer legislation. Therefore, it is important that we get it right at the start.
  The big job now is to educate the consumer much more effectively than in the past. I should like to see much more of this work being done not only by voluntary organisations, as in the Cooperative movement, but by local authorities, in educating young people. It was a great pleasure recently to be involved in a conference of youth leaders from Derbyshire when, as an act of policy, the Derbyshire County Education Committee sought to turn youth clubs into little consumer groups so that the young person who was getting married could be more vigilant and prepared for the difficult task of choosing among what the shopkeeper and the manufacturer had to offer.
  It was always argued that the consumer had legitimate protection under common law. The idea expressed in the Latin tag caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—was valid enough in the days when the customer could touch, understand and be familiar with everything which he or she was buying. The reason we have the Bill is that that is clearly no longer true. We can no longer rely on the protection of the common law, since it is now virtually impossible in many circumstances for a

  715
  consumer to know precisely what he or she is getting.
  It is worth recalling briefly the kind of changes which have taken place to make the Bill necessary. For a start, we now have much more to spend. We all welcome this, but it makes choice much more difficult. It means that the consumer who, in the past, just about scraped through with enough to eat, now has to take important decisions involving a great deal of his or her income, including decisions about very large items, not merely expensive package tours, but expensive items of furniture and motor cars; and under the constant pressure of the hire-purchase salesman.
  I did not know how far that had gone until, the other day, I discussed it with a local trader. I was surprised to learn that, from a dealer's point of view, hire purchase is now better than a cash transaction because some of the hire-purchase companies provide the retailer and dealer with a discount on every hire-purchase commitment which is entered into. Consequently, there is great pressure upon people to take on hire-purchase commitments and, perhaps—this is my fear—to take on bigger commitments than they might otherwise wish to do. This affects even the employees of a dealer who often get a bonus on every hire-purchase form which is completed. Thus there is constant pressure for us as consumers to take on very heavy commitments.
  There is also the problem of new materials, with which we as consumers cannot be expected to be familiar. I suppose that any Yorkshire man or woman could tell the worth of a piece of worsted cloth simply by looking at it, feeling it and, perhaps, smelling it, but none of us, even if we had time to read all the technical jargon, can keep up with the virtues or otherwise of synthetic fibres which seem to come on to the market almost daily.
  Then there are the complicated products which we now purchase. Few of us are electronic engineers, few of us are even simple electricians, and we cannot possibly know the worth or qualities, or the honesty of an advertisement relating to, a vacuum cleaner, washing machine or many other of the myriad gadgets which our wives seem to want.
  716
  Shopping habits have changed. There has been a revolution in retailing. We now want to shop very quickly. When I was working in Birmingham, an important local retailer told me that the bulk of his trade was done in one hour between one o'clock and two o'clock in the afternoon, when all the working wives in the vicinity rushed into the one big store which happened to be open conveniently in the centre of the town to do their grocery shopping. So we have to rush through the shop and take things at their face value.
  We also have to take our commodities packaged. Packaging has now reached the stage that we cannot buy meat unless it is wrapped in cellophane and placed under coloured lighting, so that we cannot really tell, even if we knew, whether Scotch beef should be blood red or slightly blue. Even if we knew what to look for, we could not see it. It seems to me that we are determined to prevent the consumer from seeing what she is getting.
  Parallel with that is the fact that the consumer now has fewer staff to advise her when shopping. This again is part of the revolution. The entry of the supermarkets and self-service methods means that the skilled grocer or butcher has been replaced by a boy or girl, perhaps on a part-time basis, whose job is merely to put things on the shelf. Therefore, the advice which was obtainable in the past is no longer available.
  Finally, there is the constant pressure of advertising, expenditure on which amounted last year to over £600 million, in an attempt to persuade us.
  All of this led the President of the American Consumers' Union a little while ago to describe the consumer as
  "A dumb colossus standing at the corner of Paradox Street and Pressure Group Alley",
  Bewitched, bothered and bewildered, beguiled perhaps by the advertisers, certainly wooed by the sharks and occasionally left penniless at the altar and with no trade union to back her up or speak on her behalf.
  We always refer to the consumer in the feminine gender. I do not know why, because my experience is that we males are much worse consumers in that we are often unable to make the wisest choice. Consumers like myself are usually scared

  717
  to death of the retailer; we take the first thing which is offered to us and we face a telling off when we get home.
  For all these reasons, it is necessary to tighten up. Having given the consumer, to whom we still refer as "her", a voice through the Consumer Council, we must now give her the assurance of honesty.
  To deal with one or two specific points in the Bi11, I welcome particularly the provisions for enforcement in Clause 25. I am sure that the great weakness of the Merchandise Marks Acts was not the provisions of the Acts, but the lack of provision for enforcement and the fact that it was left to a voluntary agency to initiate prosecutions to protect its own members from getting a bad name. I therefore welcome the fact that local authorities are now given the power to undertake prosecutions. I hope that the result will not merely be that local authorities expand their departments to enable them to undertake prosecutions, but that they will expand in another direction, because, as my hon. Friends have suggested, if we get proper consumer protection departments, members of the public will know where to go if they want information.
  I think that it is necessary, albeit in certain limited cases, for the Board of Trade to prosecute, particularly when a point of general principle is involved. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend intends to take this power, and to use it.
  Mr. Darling: The power is provided for in the Bill. The power to prosecute is there, but we put an obligation on the local authorities and there is, ipso facto,an obligation on the Board of Trade as well.
  Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure he agrees that the points which have been made about constant and frivolous prosecutions could be met if the Board of Trade was prepared to take action, initially, when important cases come to its notice, so that some of the issues can be settled in a court of law.
  To turn, now, to the difficult question of oral misdescription. I have had some experience in the training of retail staff. There is always the fear that if one is asking a boy or girl to take on great
  718
  responsibility, the retailer may feel that he cannot give the boy or girl that responsibility, and therefore tells him or her to say nothing. If this were done, it would mitigate an important aspect of the protection which we are trying to provide, namely, ensuring that the consumer gets the right kind of information.
  On the other hand, I do not see how we can avoid including the oral misdescription Clause. It is important to be able to get at the shark. On the whole, it is the shark who will suffer. I do not believe that, given a few prosecutions, this fear on the part of reputable retailers will continue. I think I am right in saying that the oral offence is already included in the Weights and Measures Act, and in the Food and Drugs Act. There is no evidence of this having had a disastrous effect on the retail trade. I certainly have not received any complaints about it doing so. What is certain is that we must have some kind of protection not merely against the written claim, but also against the oral one.
  How far are the definitions in Clause 3 of a false trade description intended to go? It has always seemed to me that deliberately dishonest advertisements, or deliberately dishonest statements of fact, are very rare. Much more important are descriptions by implication. For example, one sometimes sees an advertisement showing a young man walking in the rain, and wearing a raincoat. One assumes that the coat is waterproof in some way. Will the general definition in the Clause include this kind of thing?
  How far will Clause 3(4) go? Will it, for example, cover the claim that the product has the approval of a group of doctors, or a group of experts in the field? I gather that the Bill covers the point that the description has the support of some kind of approvals body, but can this Clause be stretched to cover the suggestion that the product is approved by a doctor, or that the product in an advertisement is a first-class one recommended by a research chemist, or a scientific director? I am not sure just how far we ought to go, but perhaps we can be told what the Government intend.
  Clause 11 is a difficult one, and I sympathise with many of the points which have been made. Resale price maintenance has gone, and we have little on

  719
  which to work. I am heartily sick and tired of going into a shop and seeing a notice saying "2d. off", and asking "2d. off what?" I have never been able to find out. It is impossible to discover what price the special offer relates to, and I hope that despite all the comments made in the other place, and despite the views of various interested parties, my right hon. Friend will not weaken too much when he comes to consider the redrafting of the Clause, because this is the largest area of offence from the consumer's point of view. The consumer has a right to know whether she is getting a bargain, and she cannot know this until she knows what relationship the price on offer bears to the normal price. I see the difficulty in finding a suitable form of words, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend——
  Mr. Burden: This poses an important question, because in many instances firms buy in for a sale. They have articles which are specifically manufactured for sale, and are sold as sale articles, but the prices have not been reduced.
  Mr. Gardner: Nobody wants to prevent somebody making a genuine sale offer, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestions which have been made by the Retail Trading Standards Association, which has considerable experience in the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, for a new Clause 11. I am sure that if we weaken on this issue, if we find ourselves with a Clause which does not really cover the falsely cut price, we shall neglect our duty to the consumer.
  One Clause which worries me considerably is Clause 23, which provides certain defences. The House ought to bear in mind that we are repealing the Mer- chandise Marks Acts. With all their failing and lack of enforcement, they were pretty tough in setting out the offences and in providing a basis for prosecution. Having looked at Clause 23 (1,a), and combined it with the general definition of a false trade description in Clause 3, I fear that a shark, given a good lawyer, will find a loophole in the Bill big enough to drive a coach and horses through.
  What is meant by
  "reliance on information supplied to him"?
  720
  Let us consider our friend the itinerant carpet salesman. Will it be a defence to say, "I got my secretary to phone and ask whether the stuff was any good"? Precisely what does it mean? I doubt whether the phrase should remain in the Bill, since it will provide a defence wide enough for almost anyone to get away with it.
  I welcome the Bill. It is a very good Measure and I hope that the House will treat it seriously, and non-politically, and seek to alter it for the better. It is an important milestone in the battle for consumer protection, and I am sure that it will be welcomed, not only by consumers, but by reputable traders as well.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I welcome the fact that the name of this Bill was changed to the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill in another place. I have been interested in the debate because the emphasis on this Measure has been from the point of view of consumer protection. I suggest that there is a danger that perhaps this side has been over-emphasised, because it is politically attractive. The people who give us the vote—the housewife and the man in the street—are more interested in consumer protection and will welcome the Bill.
  I have been looking at this Measure with an entirely different set of spectacles since it was first published before the last Election. I have been looking at it in terms of trade descriptions. Trade marks involve the reputation and quality of the goods from our factories, particularly in the export markets. I have not therefore been looking at this Bill so much from the point of view of consumer protection.
  My contribution will be brief. I welcome the fact that this is a consumer protection Measure, but I wish to make quite certain that the aspect of the whole concept of trade description, as I have understood it, has not been forgotten and will not be going by default.
  The Minister of State knows that I was concerned with consumer protection on the Trading Stamp Act. He and I were also concerned with the last Weights and Measures legislation.
  I welcome the fact that Sheffield has been mentioned as having an adequate

  721
  consumer advisory service. But activities under the Merchandise Marks Acts, particularly the registration of trade names and trade descriptions, have been a main feature of the industry of Sheffield for generations—even centuries—in connection with special steel and cutlery. My brief contribution will be concentrated on this aspect.
  Rightly or wrongly, I have always regarded a trade mark as a symbol of prestige both at home and abroad. Dealing with chinaware or pottery, such symbols as Wedgwood and Crown Derby are household names throughout the world for quality. This is something of which we should be proud.
  The symbol RR on an aircraft is symbolic of a name well-known throughout the world as being associated with some of the best aircraft engines.
  Sheffield, too, is jealous of its trade marks. Naturally the nature of its trade is changing. The Cutlers' Company, of which I happen to be a searcher, was incorporated in 1624. Had I lived three centuries ago, I would have been expected to exercise the right to enter manufacturing factories as a member of the Cutlers' Company. By 1860 its activities were extended to steels, saws and edge tools as well as cutlery. Its activities were extended to metals in 1888, whether wrought, unwrought or partly wrought. The effect was to make the Sheffield Register a branch of the Patent Office for registration of all marks used on metal goods by persons carrying on business in Hallamshire, which is not unconnected with my constituency and where I live.
  The 1905 Trade Marks Act and the 1938 Act has involved Sheffield. I ask the Minister to assure me that there is no change in this respect.
  Dealing with the question of prestige, there has been some concern over the last century in protecting the name "Sheffield". I should imagine that this is very much the concern of other industries and institutions and individual companies, but in a slightly different context. In 1911 a defence fund was created, which was again renewed in 1962. The purpose was to suppress the misuse of the word "Sheffield". It will not take much imagination for hon. Members to realise that "Sheffield" is a very attractive name and if someone sets up a factory in another Sheffield, he might
  722
  imply a false description that steel has been made in Sheffield, England, and not elsewhere. It is not very difficult to set up a Sheffield factory elsewhere in the world—not Sheffield in geographical description—and still mark the goods "Sheffield". It seems to me that Clause 34, concerning goods coming into this country, would be helpful in protecting this name, because it states:
  "For the purposes of this Act goods shall be deemed to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which they last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change."
  The point here is that the Minister has power to specify and make orders. But this Clause by itself, unless he acts on it, is useless.
  The most important thing is not so much goods coming into this country, but goods on sale throughout the world. If one is selling something in the Far East, the person in the Far East will not know the difference between Sheffield, England, Sheffield, America, or Sheffield, South America. Where there has been infringement the defence fund has been very much used. I would like the Minister to consider this aspect not only for goods made in Sheffield. which happens to be a name of interest to the Minister and myself, but for every other activity.
  This brings me to a problem which is of immense concern to manufacturers in this country. Admittedly, I have been associated with cutlery, small tools and special steels, There are two important points. The first is that all imported goods should be marked with the country of origin; not just a general description such as "Empire" or Foreign". Until the exchange took place between the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) I was uncertain that this was the case. If cutlery, toys and domestic goods are all in the same category, can we have a categorical assurance that goods coming in will now be named with the country of origin? This would go a long way not only to safeguard the consumer, which is all-important, but give the manufacturer at home a better chance in our own markets. Very often a person could go into a shop in Sheffield to buy scissors and assume they might be made in Sheffield, but in many cases it is difficult to know where they have been made. The Minister of State and I have had many such instances brought to our attention.

  723
  The second thing is that there should be strict control whereby the genuine country of origin of any goods should be marked on the goods. The problem in the cutlery industry is that blanks can he made in Japan, Hong Kong or elsewhere, and sent into this country to be finished in Sheffield or elsewhere. Clause 15 will help in this respect and to a certain extent also Clause 16, which is the restriction on definitions. However, this still does not help about the position of goods that are brought into the country and then may have not so much a wrong or misleading source of origin, but an indefinite source of origin. I asked the Minister of State a number of questions on this. I have tried to get the source of origin marked on the invoices for goods shipped into this country. I find that there are only seven countries who have asked us to do this in return.
  The Minister of State gave us many assurances and it is essential that we deal with this one, but another issue has cropped up. Under Clause 34, which is very much more helpful, supposing cheap components such as those for wireless sets or blanks for cutlery are made in the Far East and sent to Europe or Ireland or somewhere else and the finished goods are then marked "Made in Holland", "Made in France", "Made in Belgium". "Made in Ireland", where have they in fact been made? This means a close scrutiny of the powers that the Minister has under Clause 34 of this Bill. I shall ask my hon. Friends to do this in Standing Committee.
  I have discussed all these problems with emphasis on protecting the prestige and good name of manufacturers in this country. This should be the concern of both consumer and manufacturer. There are many manufacturers who want to maintain British quality, but are in the dilemma of having to meet cheap price competition. When British manufactures and products are in competition with cheap prices from overseas, but where quality is maintained no British manufacturer can complain. But in those instances where there is no indication that quality has declined, the consumer will not know this is the case. It is a little hard if a home-based company, factory or industry is blamed for faulty components which were not only made in
  724
  Europe or nearby, but made from cheap assemblies which may not match quality specification expected from goods made in this country. This has happened in the case of scissors sold in Sheffield for instance.
  I will ask my hon. Friends to press in Committee to see what sort of Regulations the Minister will specify in Clause 34. Powers have existed and I wish to see them used. Perhaps we might also emphasise, by way of Amendment to Clause 8, the need for a statement of the country of origin.
  I hope that I have emphasised something which has not been mentioned so far in this debate and that hon. Members will appreciate this point of view. I do not seek to belittle the consumer protection aspects of the Bill, but there is another side, and I am relieved that manufacturers and consumers will have a much better opportunity to know the country of origin of the goods with which we will have to compete.
  Of equal importance is the maintenance of the prestige developed, perhaps, in the Victorian era of our trade marks and merchandise marks pattern and we should not allow modern methods of communication and selling to bring it down. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with this. If she cannot do so tonight, perhaps the Minister of State will give me this assurance in writing later.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Although I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, (Mr. Osborn) I must congratulate him on his political acumen. In particular, there was such admirable repetition of the word "Sheffield" that I thought he came close to advertising——
  Sir K. Joseph: Not misleading, though.
  Mr. Morris: As the right hon. Gentleman says, at least he was not misleading. The hon. Member made an interesting and valuable speech which, when we come to read it in HANSARD, we shall probably regard as the "Sheffield speech" of this debate. I will refer later to Sheffield, a city which has played an important rôle in consumer protection in recent years.

  725
  But first let me emphasise that we waited a long time for the Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection and have waited a very long time for the Bill. I welcome it and congratulate the Minister of State both on its content and the manner in which it was introduced. It will help consumers and honest traders alike and will be widely appreciated and welcomed in the country.
  It is a far more substantial Bill than the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) suggested. He was in some difficulty, since he did not want to praise too much a Bill which the Conservative Government could itself have brought in. So he tended to minimise its importance and even suggested that the name of the Molony Committee was wrong. Of course, the Bill is carrying into legislative effect some of the most important recommendations of the Committee on Consumer Protection.
  Sir K. Joseph: In fact, it carries into effect some of the recommendations of Part V, the Merchandise Marks Acts Part of the Report, which has seven Parts.
  Mr. Morris: Nevertheless, it carries into effect important recommendations of the Committee on Consumer Protection.
  Nor was the right hon. Gentleman on a substantial point when he supported what the other place had done to the name of the Bill. Without wishing to show unreasonable political bias, I would say that there is a clear difference between the two sides on consumer protection. Certainly, there are some hon. Members opposite who are as keen as some of us on this side about consumer protection. I have cause to remember the Bill introduced in the last Session by the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) about doorstep selling, of which I was a sponsor.
  But I should say that there is more pressure for consumer protection legislation upon a Labour Government than one normally sees on a Conservative Government——
  Mr. Michael Shaw: No.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman denies this, but I will argue that the Conservative Party has a great deal of which to be ashamed in the past year over consumer protection.
  726
  I and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, Mrs. Braddock, tabled an Early Day Motion last summer which said:
  "That this House, recognising the benefits to the community resulting from the provisions of adequate consumer advice and information services at local level, regrets the action of the Central Purchasing Committee of the Liverpool City Council in seeking to reverse the decision to establish a Municipal Consumer Protection Department …"
  The Liverpool City Council subsequently approved the recommendation of its central purchasing committee and this was a straight party political decision.
  What had happened between the decision to institute a Consumer Protection Department and the decision to discontinue this department was that the council had changed hands. The Labour Party controlled Liverpool until last May and when the Conservatives took over they decided to discontinue a forward-looking service to which both the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam paid tribute in the form in which it exists in Sheffield and Bristol.
  Moreover, I notice that my proposal for a consumers' advisory service in Manchester has not made much progress in recent months. It is now thought that the city should await the outcome of this Bill, but I take the view that local authorities should be anticipating its enactment by going ahead, as Sheffield and Bristol have done and as Liverpool was doing until the Conservatives took control, with the setting up of local consumer protection services.
  There is an even more important point we should notice about the difference dividing the two sides of the House on this question. The Labour movement has within it the greatest consumers' organisation in this country, and probably in the world. The Co-operative movement supports, and is proud to support, the Labour Party at elections both national and local. It is the consumers' wing of the Labour movement. And the Government should recognise, perhaps more than has been recognised so far during its period of office, not only the value but also the vital importance of its connection with the Co-operative movement.
  There always has been and will continue to be pressure for increased consumer protection from the Co-operative

  727
  movement. Indeed the movement is the pioneer of consumer protection in this country. And I hope hon. Members opposite will recognise that those of us who have a close relationship with the Cooperative movement take a particular pleasure in this Bill having been introduced by a Minister who has a close personal connection with our movement.
  Consumer protection is not, however, as well organised as it should be. Workers' and employers' organisations exert much more social and economic power than consumers. Many official committees, even including committees which have reported recently, have given less than proper weight to evidence submitted by the Co-operative movement. This is why I emphasise that the movement is still the most representative organisation of consumers in this country. Nevertheless, in spite of all that it has done and all that the Consumer Council and other national and local organisations do, there is a great need for more concern in this House about consumer protection. For that reason I am somewhat disappointed that this debate has not been better supported. In referring to particular Clauses in the Bill, I hope that Clause 42 will be amended to make this the Consumer Protection Act, 1968. And I hope that the Bill will become an Act very early in 1968.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that Clause 25 is very important. It gives the local authorities an important place in the work involved in carrying the Bill into effect. By giving local authorities a central place in the field of consumer protection, we are taking a most important step in the right direction. In Sheffield and Bristol a positive contribution is being made by the local consumer advisory services which have been established. They do not exist for the purpose of litigation but to create the right climate in which traders and consumers can have a better relationship than they have had before. This is why Clause 25 is so important and why local services can be of such positive value. Their main value will be in improving relations between those who sell and those who buy.
  Clause 11, which prohibits false indications concerning the price of any goods, will be welcomed both by consumers and
  728
  reputable traders. And I agree with my right hon. Friend on Clause 5. Notwithstanding the difficulties about which he clashed with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the Clause should help to strengthen the law about false advertising. My right hon. Friend recognises that this is extremely difficult. It is, of course, easy to criticise what is proposed, but I am sure he will be looking for constructive criticism in Committee to see if any improvement can be suggested.
  One of the most controversial Clauses is Clause 4, which states that oral statements may amount to an abuse of a trade description. The Molony Committee drew attention to the fact that the Merchandise Marks Acts did not cover oral misdescription. I agree, in principle, that the consumer should be protected against oral descriptions of goods which are false or grossly misleading. But I see very difficult problems arising here. There is a great deal of substance in the arguments of the Molony Committee which said in paragraph 650:
  "If oral misdescription became a criminal offence, we would expect a marked increase in prosecutions and the outcome would depend, in a high proportion, on whether the customer or the shopkeeper was believed. We are doubtful whether, in the long run, the consumer would benefit from such invidious conflicts."
  The Committee concluded that extension of the law in this respect would not be justified.
  Considerable difficulty may also arise under Clause 4(3) which states:
  "Where goods are supplied in pursuance of a request in which a trade description is used and the circumstances are such as to make it reasonable to infer that the goods are supplied as goods corresponding to that trade description, the person supplying the goods shall be deemed to have applied that trade description to the goods."
  A customer asking for a garment made wholly of nylon who is supplied with a garment of a mixture of nylon and wool would have a case against the store under the provisions of this Clause. There are, however, a number of safeguards for the shopkeeper in Clause 23 which might meet the situation if an oral misdescription was made without intent to deceive. I hope that when replying to the debate the Parliamentary Secretary will address herself to that point.

  729
  This Bill is not the end of the road to consumer protection. Such is the ingenuity of those who live on the fringe of the law—and some are living very well on the fringe of the law—that the Bill may even throw up entirely new problems. But it is a step in the right direction and one which we should all warmly welcome. Of course, the consumer is not always right. I heard from Bristol's consumer advisory service of a woman who complained about the shrinkage of a woollen jumper she had bought by mail order. On inquiry the Bristol consumer advisory officer found that it was not the garment that was at fault but that the lady's vital statistics had been misdescribed. I understand that a mutually satisfactory settlement was arrived at through the help of the Bristol Consumer Advisory Officer. We must not fall over backwards in suggesting that the consumer is always right. But I very warmly welcome the Bill as a step forward and I congratulate my right hon. Friend.
  7.29 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I will not follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), particularly in his review of the activities of the Liverpool City Corporation and his review of the Co-operative movement, save that I join him in giving a general welcome to the purposes of the Bill. The Minister of State said that he intended the Bill as a charter for fair trading. No one can dispute the need for that. The question to which we must address our minds is: though we intend to produce a charter for fair trading, have we succeeded in doing so?
  This is a subject on which an Act should be tough and robust, at the same time fair and just, but, above all, easily understood. What we are seeking to do, broadly—there will be no disagreement about this in any part of the House—is to protect the consumer against what is, basically, dishonesty—that is, against a false statement which is made either deliberately or recklessly and upon which a consumer can be expected to rely.
  My general criticism of the Bill is that it appears to me that the Parliamentary draftsmen have been too clever by half and have finished by providing a paradise for the lawyers. After all, the Bill purports
  730
  to replace the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887–1953, Acts which successive Lords Chief Justice. have described as most difficult to construe and which have given rise to many appeals. The Bill, which one would have thought would simplify the situation, contains many unnecessary obscurities. It is astonishing that no greater attempt has been made to set out the law on these important matters, which affect the ordinary, everyday trading of ordinary people, in clear language which justices of the peace and others concerned in its administration can understand.
  Large numbers of business men and consumers—indeed, all of us—are concerned with the manufacture, sale and purchase of goods of all kinds. What do these people desire to do? They desire only to understand the law and to obey it. It is, therefore, essential that a Bill such as this should be written in clear language, first from the business man's point of view.
  Great difficulty arose in understanding whether the old Merchandise Marks Acts applied to advertisements. Is a description in an advertisement published in a newspaper, or in an advertisement on television, where extravagant claims are often to be found, considered to constitute an application of a trade description to the goods within the definition contained in Clauses 4 and 5? Clearly it should be. Clearly the Government think that it does. I have considerable doubts about this basic point. If this is intended, as it clearly is, why should it not be stated clearly and unequivocally in the text of the Bill?
  I come to some more detailed criticisms. The definition of "trade description" in Clause 2 may turn out to be not as wide as under the old Acts. Section 3 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 made it an offence inaccurately to describe goods as to their standard of quality according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade—for example, according to British Standards specifications or qualities approved by official organisations.
  This specific reference to quality has been omitted from the Bill. "Quality" is a common word in common use. Why not include it? The ordinary man in the street understands what is meant when

  731
  the word "quality" is used. Why wrap up the limitations on the use of phrases in obscure language when everybody knows that false descriptions as to quality are to be found in so many forms of advertisement? If the ordinary television viewer who sees a false description is asked, "What was that falsity?", he will say, "It is false as to its quality". Why cannot the Bill say this simply?
  The right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), who has a great deal of experience of the Merchandise Marks Acts, referred to Clause 3. Subsection (1) is perfectly sensible:
  "A false trade description is a trade description which is false to a material degree."
  Any magistrate can understand that. What on earth subsection (2) means I do not know. It reads:
  "A trade description which, though not false, is misleading, that is to say, likely to be taken for such an indication of any of the matters specified in section 2 of this Act as would be false to a material degree, shall be deemed to be a false trade description."
  That is absolute gibberish.
  This is where I think that the Parliamentary draftsmen have tried to be too clever by half. Whenever draftsmen try to do the work of the courts for them and introduce qualification after qualification, they end up by creating a paradise for lawyers. How on earth is a common shopkeeper, manufacturer or consumer to understand that provision when I, who have a little experience in the law, do not understand what it means? I doubt if any other lawyer in the House understands what it means. No doubt, I would be prepared to advocate a certain meaning for it if briefed by one side or the other and a court might accept my construction. I believe that it will create unnecessary difficulties. The Courts have always been fairly robust in interpreting the Merchandise Marks Acts. When there is a simple description, as there is in Clause 3 (1), why introduce unnecessary qualifications in obscure language elsewhere in the Bill?
  It is also difficult to understand why there has been omitted from the Bill the clear statement that it is wrong to mark goods as being subject to a patent when no such patent exists or when at the date of supply that patent has expired. This
  732
  is a simple protection which one would expect to see in a Bill of this kind.
  Again, the Bill contains no reference to the misuse of trade marks. It is a commonplace in business that names of new products are frequently copied and used by unscrupulous competitors after the originator of the name has advertised goods extensively under that name. It is common practice for persons and firms in the United Kingdom and from abroad to try to cash in or ride on the good will of another trader by imitating the trade marks and devices of others.
  Why cannot such a straightforward matter as infringement of trade mark be brought before lay justices for summary trial? At present, a cumbersome and expensive proceeding for infringement of trade mark must be brought in the High Court of Chancery, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. This is a relic of the past and should be changed. What more unsatisfactory procedure could be thought of than to deal with simple business matters of this kind in the High Court of Chancery? Only a very old-established tradition whereby trade marks have always been dealt with in the Chancery Division could justify such nonsense.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I thought that I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say that trade marks were a simple business matter. Admittedly I am not a lawyer, but the little I have had to do with trade marks has convinced me that the subject is far from simple, and the more I have gone into it the more difficult it has become.
  Mr. Hooson: I think that it is partly the proceedings of the law that have made it difficult. Basically, the question of the trademark, description or registration is a perfectly simple matter. We have chosen to make it more difficult and obscure than it need be.
  I have taken the advice of one of our leading trade mark counsel on this point, because I am not an expert in these matters. Whether one label or trade mark is similar to another is largely a question of first impression. Therefore, what more suitable tribunal is there than a bench of lay justices familiar with the ordinary methods of buying and selling goods?

  733
  What is more inappropriate than to plunge a Chancery judge—no doubt, with a great deal of learning but not, one would have thought, with any business experience—into such matters?
  The Bill is of tremendous practical importance, purporting to give effect to important practical recommendations of the Final Report of the Committee on Consumer Protection. But I am very disappointed in it; I do not think that it will achieve what it sets out to achieve. One hon. Member opposite said that the public would be grateful for the protection that it would give them, but it went through my mind then that they would probably have to live a lifetime before they know what protection it gives them.
  When, in the modern world, we are so dependent on the description given by manufacturers and sellers, when every person is a consumer, for the public at large are the consumers—they are not a separate class—it is vital that we should express the will of the House in simple language that everyone can understand in a Bill like this.
  I am glad to know that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will be winding up the debate, for the matter is close to her heart, but I am sure that she cannot feel happy about the wording of the Bill. I would not mind betting that she would find the greatest difficulty in interpreting it without the most expert advice from her Department on it. Why should this House and Parliament pass Bills in this form in 1968?
  7.41 p.m.
  Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) worries me in the same way that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) worried me, because when lawyers cannot understand the Bill it is right to say that it will be rather difficult for everybody else. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be on the Committee, for the constructive points he raised were suitable for discussion there, and would improve the Bill and make it more comprehensible to the layman.
  As a layman I was, unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman, very impressed with the way in which the tremendous Report of the Molony Committee had been
  734
  boiled down. By hook or by crook, the draftsmen have found a formula to include some of the provisions we wished to see on difficult points, when I imagined that they would not be able to do so. I was so impressed by what the draftsmen have done that I hope I may have similar services to help me with any Measure I succeeded in introducing for consumer protection.
  The Bill has been thought about in the House for a long time, and this must be a red letter day for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. For three years after I first entered the House in 1959 I joined with him in trying to catch the eye of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, on Thursdays to ask when we would get the Molony Report. We waited for Molony, and when it came out we continued to press the Government of that day for the legislation with which to implement it. The Bill is the end of an era of consumer protection legislation. It is the last of the things which Molony foreshadowed, and more or less rounds off what we sought in those days.
  A number of hon. Members opposite asked which party was the best champion of the consumer. All I know is that all of us have sought in our own way to improve the housewife's protection, and that cuts right across the Floor of the Chamber. I have sat through many consumer protection debates with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who is a regular. Had we been debating wages today, 100 of my trade union colleagues would have been here, and had we been debating agriculture, 100 Opposition hon. Members would have been present. When it comes to how to protect the ordinary housewife and the family purse, we have the old faithfuls from all three parties.
  I deplore the fact that we pay lip service to consumer protection at election times, when we are looking for the women's vote. We all claim that we shall be the party which will protect the consumer if we come to power. But, in fact, it takes us six long years to complete the implementation of the Molony Report. Having got this Measure into the pipeline, we realise that it will be a considerable period before further Parliamentary time is found for legislation to protect the consumer.

  735
  Like my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine) and Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) I declare a consumer-co-operative interest. The Co-operative movement, which I seek to serve inside and outside the House, has 124 years' experience of consumer protection. The Rochdale pioneers of 1844 started with the idea that sugar and sand were not compatible mixtures for the housewife. They sought to provide unadulterated food, and succeeded in the last century. In this century the Co-operative movement pioneered clean milk long before legislation was introduced and so reduced the incidence of tuberculosis. The Bill is an extension of the kind of work many of us have tried to do for consumers. I regard it as part of the Housewives' Charter.
  Mr. Hooson: We have now heard, I think, the third successive plug from the other side of the House for the Cooperative movement. May we also put in a word for Marks and Spencer?
  Mr. Pavitt: In the House and in the Co-operative movement we have learned quite a lot from Marks and Spencer over the past few years, particularly in its trading methods. I have spent quite a lot of time urging that Government buying departments should adopt similar methods of purchasing.
  The consumer is the least glamorous of objectives for politicians. Consumers do not have the political pressure to mount at the right time and place. I am, therefore, grateful to all hon. Members who have sat through the debate helping us to mount it at this time. I believe that in our present economic situation prices are the essential part of any economic strategy. One cannot hold back wages, or increase productivity if there is a runaway price structure. On the other hand one cannot just talk of prices. The important thing is the value of the commodity, its value for money, and that is what we are dealing with now.
  Like many other hon. Members, I had a look at the whole question of Clause 4 and the way in which we shall try to do something about oral misdescriptions. I congratulate my hon. Friends on this. I am in a very uncritical mood on this issue. I am highly critical about some
  736
  other matters before the House, and it is rather a pleasure to be uncritical. Having compared Clause 4 with the Molony Report, I think that the Government have done even better than Molony, which wanted this protection but could not see how to get it by legislation. The Government have succeeded in doing it.
  I am interested in the way in which this will be worked out in practice. I was worried that a co-operative society publicly-owned and run by a lay committee, might find an over-zealous employee giving a good puff to his wares and thus placing innocent People in jeopardy. Having looked into that point thoroughly, I am satisfied that the Clause will not have that effect. Under the Food and Drugs Acts and the Weights and Measures Acts, there are very similar provisions but the times they have been used unfairly are negligible, and it is very rarely that they are used at all. Although any such Clause is obviously surrounded by all kinds of problems, I think that in the main it will work out satisfactorily.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Gentleman evidently has information which the Government have not about the number of occasions when, under the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, and the Sale of Food Act, oral misrepresentation or misdescription has been the subject of a prosecution. When I asked the Board of Trade, it said that this was a matter for the local authorities and that it had no statistics on the subject. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has.
  Mr. Pavitt: No, but I did the same kind of homework as the hon. Gentleman did. I went through a number of channels and I could find no evidence that this had been misused. I am certain that, had it been misused, there would at least have been some evidence. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were able to produce evidence, I would look again at this but I think that the provision will work satisfactorily.
  Clause 11 has aroused the most debate. It seeks to protect us as buyers against ourselves as bargain hunters. We all tend to think that if we can get a bargain we should buy it. That has been exploited to the full. I would welcome a change of style in retail distribution, away from the "threepence off" concept

  737
  and posters which proclaim in large letters that we shall save so much on certain goods, although one knows that the amount of saving over a series of items amounts to very little in the end.
  The price to us of this system is in the quality of living. We have first-class architects who design shops and first-class artists who could design good posters easy on the eye. Instead, we clutter up our shops with posters offering threepence or sixpence off and making bargain offers and instead of the modern, light airy shops we could enjoy we have a clutter of persuasion.
  I think that it was the late Frank Pick of the London Transport Board who broke new ground by establishing higher standards of poster advertising on the Underground. This was a march forward for every one of us in terms of environment. Perhaps we have had to take a step backwards because of the hurry and pressure to sell, sell, sell, and have reached the stage when our standards of visual appreciation are being debased all the time.
  I believe that Clause 11 could be the start of a break-through once again to a more highly civilised environment for the housewife in her shopping. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Board of Trade in trying to work this out. How does one decide what is unfair description? It was said that Beecham's pills were worth a guinea a box, but did anyone think that a guinea was the price of the box? Yet the slogan went on for years. How will the Minister decide what is an unworthy description? However, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible and he has accepted his responsibility. The consumers will be grateful to him.
  Another provision which is only the start of what I hope will be further attempts to protect the consumer is Clause 13 and the way in which we have begun to look at services. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the Selective Employment Tax because he realised that people were spending more money on services than on goods. While we have sought to give protection on goods the amount of protection on Services is very small and even
  738
  this Bill only covers a narrow range of them.
  I listened with great care to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I felt that he drew this Clause very narrowly as to the way in which one could protect services. I wonder whether the Clause is strong enough to protect where the service is implicit rather than explicit. For instance, when one buys a washing machine or vacuum cleaner or something else for which one pays £70 or £80, one buys it for a period. The understanding is that it will work for a period of time. It may have a year's guarantee but one reckons its life at, say, 10 years. Yet one finds it impossible to get service for such a machine in many cases. One is paying for a service one does not get.
  For example, Which? magazine, which has done such a tremendous amount of education of the consumer, recently showed how a hearing aid worn behind the ear—hon. Members may observe that I wear one—costs about £12–£14 to produce but may be retailed at perhaps £65 or £75. That is an extremely wide margin. Yet it can be argued that this margin is because the person who has to wear an aid needs education in how to use it and the aid itself needs a lot of servicing which takes up a lot of time, so that if the firm gives such service there may be justification for at least part of that margin. But if no service is given, then the consumer has really been cheated. We must seek to protect the consumer from that kind of thing.
  Another example is rather personal and very much round my neck at the moment. I have a "Hotpoint" washing machine which broke down a month ago. I tried to get through about it to the firm's washing machine service depot in London. Has any hon. Member tried to get through to "Hotpoint" for service? I challenged the managing director to do it and I doubt if he could get through. Any hon. Member who lives in a house or flat with no outside drying facilities knows how difficult it is to deal with a wife when there is a lot of wet washing and the machine has broken down and there is no prospect of repair for weeks.
  Finally, I put through a trunk call to "Hotpoint's" headquarters at Lutterworth, near Rugby. I am not saying that

  739
  it is because I am a Member of Parliament, for I suspect that anyone who puts in a trunk call there would get similar good service, but the firm started to move. The district manager himself called yesterday and the machine, which is a good machine, has been repaired. I am not a housewife. I was able to leave my wife behind amid housewifely frustration during all this trouble and come here to listen to the interesting debates of colleagues.
  When it comes to durables, to machinery, there must not only be protection at the time of purchase and in pricing, but adequate service to follow. "Hotpoint" is a large and worth-while manufacturer of very good products and it has informed me that it is completely overhauling its London service depot. I hope that this will be some compensation to those Londoners who may have been affected like we were.
  Clause 15 and other provisions deal with imports. It is good if this Bill is to get us away from the 1926 Act, under which the Government had to put orders on so many individual things to make sure that the country of origin was stated. The Orders which have been presented under the 1926 Act cover such things as skewers, fly swatters, drain cleaners, potato mashers, soap savers, drum sticks, rat traps and cymbal stands. With this Bill, I hope that we shall not have the necessity to produce a statutory instrument for each commodity when we want to ensure that the country of origin is stipulated.
  We owe a debt to their Lordships for the way they have helped the Bill—except in the title. I would like the original title restored. I welcome the fact that the bulk of enforcement will be by magistrates' courts. This is because of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), that local authorities are building up a consumer protection service and that many have an officer in charge of looking after the consumers in his area. This means that the fact that any enforcement goes through the local magistrates court produces an easier method and a better relationship between the local authority consumer protection officer and the court
  740
  Nationalised industries are brought within the Bill, and this may present my hon. Friend with a problem. Is it a misdescription to talk about high speed gas? If there is a power cut then it is low speed gas. Could the Gas Board be prosecuted in a case of that kind? Nevertheless it is right that the nationalised industries should be brought within the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) raised the point of packaging. I hope that this Bill will have the power to protect consumers against excessive packaging. A report from a Bristol public health inspector claimed that the average household spent 30s. a week on packaging. If I buy a shirt I do not want a huge box with fancy wrapping; I want to be able to take the shirt out to make sure that the sleeves are the right length, but when I see all those pins I am scared to do it, in case I cannot get it back again. I do not know how much power this Bill has, but it is time that someone called a halt to the tissue. the cellophane, the coloured paper and all the other things for which, in the end, only one person pays—the buyer.
  This Bill is one of the recognitions that no longer is the law of supply and demand sufficient to protect consumers. With the highly scientific methods of selling, using all possible psychological insights, sales promotion can shape the way in which a market goes, rather than consumer demand. It is possible to build a market purely by persuasion. In those circumstances, unless there is some protection, at the end of the line the consumer finds himself spending a larger measure of the household budget on things which are not value for money.
  I welcome the Bill because the Government have accepted all the challenges inherent in such protection. It is a continuing responsibility to protect the housewife and the family purse and I am proud of the fact that it is a Labour Government, of which I am a backbench Member which has had the courage to come forward with a controversial Measure of this kind. I wish it well.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) was a little woolly in his last

  741
  observations about the operation of the market place. He talks about promoters making a market for their profits to which the consumer may not wish to contribute. He seemed to be suggesting that the consumer was brought to buy things against his better judgment. Up to a point that is true, but that point is the operation of the free market place. This Bill allows that free market place to be regulated and in some ways restricted, but not too harshly.
  In this country, as in all highly industrialised countries, there is concern about the consumer, not so much that we exploit him, but just concern that he might be being exploited. The consumer is concerned about this new position in which he finds himself. He has become economically very important. He is the spender, the buyer, the customer and the person who shapes our economy. The market place is the vital key to the industrial success of the nation, or its comparative failure. Because of this the consumer attracts the attention of very powerful forces, which are in the main for good.
  I was glad to hear the Minister of State refer, with some praise, to the fact that these industrial and marketing forces were in the main to the good. They are motivated by an object of material gain. This is not wrong, but it is worth remembering that it is part of the process. It can be at the expense of the consumer, and I aim to show that industry is responsible, not anti-social. Paragraph 895 of Molony says:
  "We assert our firm belief in the probity and honourable standards of the great mass of British manufacturers and traders and their desire to maintain this country's historic traditions of quality and accurate description. Our proposals for reform do not imply the contrary in the slightest degree."
  There are other forces which have been referred to, which are anti-social and not responsible. The Minister described them as "fly by night traders", and that is probably as good a phrase as we can find. This Bill must attack these forces, and I am concerned lest the Bill, which I welcome, goes too far in its attempt to protect the consumer, and so inhibits the healthy and valuable operation of the relationship between industry and its customers, the general public.
  There is consumer awareness in the developed nations of the world. The
  742
  consumer is much more on his guard. We have the flourishing Consumers Association, with its vigorous publication, regarded as a valuable authority on what is and what is not a good buy. I endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and praise what he has done for the Association. There is also the Consumer Council. We should not imagine that it is a very strong body. I know the organisation, and it does not have great Government funds behind it to enable it to be as strong as it would like.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will give some thought as to whether the Council is sufficiently strong to carry out its important and good intentions. "Teltag" is a well intentioned and informative piece of information for the public. I have had considerable experience with trade marks. "Teltag" lacks the money to make it known. Something that the Minister says might give greater strength to "Teltag" in future. I am all for good informative labelling and I support an individual manufacturer's efforts to produce not only good products but to tell the public that he is producing good products.
  I believe that oral misdescription is overcome at the point of purchase by good packaging, with proper descriptions on the packet, the label and the accompanying publicity material. The hon. Member for Willesden, West spoke of buying a shirt and wanting to take it out of the box to check the sleeve length. However, I would remind him that the majority of garments are bought on a self-service basis, and they need to be protected from bad handling by prospective purchasers. As a result, they are packaged and boxed. The hon. Gentleman's complaint underlines all the more the need for informative packaging, so that he will know the sleeve length of the shirt contained in the box. However, I will not go into too much detail on his tale of the shirt.
  There are many other bodies serving the consumer by looking at products and reporting on the state and value of merchandise on the market. It should not be forgotten that we are not alone in the market place as the manufacturer, the marketeer and the advertiser let loose their thunder at us. The press, radio and

  743
  television are watching as guardians of the public interests, and they are only too willing to debunk false claims and expose frauds.
  Captain Walter Elliot: Before my hon. Friend leaves his point about packaging, can he say how much it adds to the cost of the shirt quoted by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt)?
  Mr. Crouch: I suppose that it is up to the manufacturer to say how much he spends on the packaging. It is true that the cost of the shirt box, the cellophane, the labelling, the paper and the labour involved in packing, as distinct from the garment itself, may amount to as much as 2s. But, after all, we have heard some false observations about how we buy and sell in the market place. I am addressing my remarks to the Parliamentary Secretary so that she may hear that some of those observations are a little unworthy when one considers the problem and task of the market place. Packaging is a form of protection. In the case of foodstuffs, it keeps out dirt, and it protects a commodity like meat which has to be handled in the course of buying and selling. Another point of interest is that we are able to see a much better presentation at the point of sale because of clean packaging. I agree that it is possible to go too far and spend too much, but we are not talking about a manufacturer operating entirely on his own. He has the discipline of competition all the time, and we should not forget that reality as we talk about what goes on in the market place.
  There is a lot of power in the Bill for the Board of Trade, but it should be given proper powers to intervene and control buying and selling, though not to an unlimited extent. We should not seek to impose any more bureaucratic control over the marketing and advertising of products. In the time that I have known him, I have never regarded the Minister of State as a great interventionist in the operation of a free market economy, but I hope that he will remember that the Bill suggests that the Board of Trade should dictate the meaning of words. That is too much power, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reassure us on this point when she comes to reply to the debate.
  744
  The meaning of words that may be decided by the Board of Trade may not be reasonable and may not bear much relationship to the meaning attributed to those words by the man in the street. We should not forget the consumer when we seek to attach such importance to trade descriptions and to the meaning of words and what they imply. I would like to see the Board of Trade have proper powers, because I do not think that they are sufficient in the Clause covering enforcement for the Board of Trade to back up its good intentions. The Bill aims at protecting the consumer, and I want to make what is good in the Bill effective in operation. The promise of protection to the consumer which the Bill offers will require some policing. It is not enough for the Board of Trade to leave it entirely to local authorities, private trade associations and individuals.
  There are a number of weak points in the Bill particularly about uniformity of enforcement. Different interpretations could arise on similar prosecutions across the country due to a lack of uniformity. The Bill suggests that all such offences would be considered and vetted by the Board of Trade, but I wonder whether vetting is enough and whether the Board of Trade should not take responsibility for the prosecution of cases involving all nationally advertised products.
  In an intervention earlier I mentioned the control of advertising. The Minister of State was very frank about the Advertising Standards Authority. He said that, when it was established following the Molony Report, he himself was rather sceptical about its effectiveness. He was generous enough to say today that he had been very impressed by its operations and that it was setting extremely rigid standards. It is a voluntary body, and I am glad to hear that he welcomes it because it has performed a considerable task in preventing misleading and false claims and has encouraged higher standards in advertising.
  The control of advertising on television in this country is remarkable. No other country has such a strict control on advertisements before they appear. The Television Advertising Control is a body set up under the Act through the Independent Television Authority. An independent body has been set up through

  745
  the Independent Television Companies Association which has a separate panel of outside consultants of considerable distinction and responsibility in medicine, engineering, veterinary research, and so on. They are by no means idle consultants, and the body which reviews something like 5,000 commercial advertisement films a year refers to its panel of consultants each week any questionable advertising which is submitted to it. An advertisement film cannot appear on our television screens before it has passed through this well-organised control.
  In pleading for the freedom of the market, I remember how volatile and important this new medium of advertising is, and how essential it is to have proper control over it. We have a most excellent control, and the consumer is getting very good protection in this way. There is in the Bill still not enough differentiation between the types of advertisements. There is a difference between a fleeting television commercial used as a reminder for the regular weekly shopping and an informative label or what has to be printed on the back of a product by way of instruction. I mention this because I would not want the Bill to insist that these fleeting advertisements should carry a monotonous collection of instructions and warnings. That would do a disservice to the consumer, an example in a way of familiarity breeding contempt.
  These are examples of things which should be on the label but not repeated constantly in the advertisements to make them dull and uninteresting. "Certain stubborn stains may require rubbing, scrubbing and boiling" is good advice in the right place. With motor cars, "Excessive speed can be dangerous." "Tyres can burst if wrongly inflated". That would be very boring if it were injected into the advertisement for a motor car but very sensible in the handbook that came with the car. The same applies in regard to sweets and confectionery—"This product should be consumed in moderation to avoid weight and dental problems". This is right in the right place, but not in the constantly repeated advertisement.
  We have had much discussion in the Chamber today on the question of oral misdescription. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds,
  746
  North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that we need some protection against flagrant and persistent misdescription and false claims at the point of sale. Molony said it had been widespread and much of such false description of merchandise has been reckless and in some cases frankly dishonest, but that is all the more reason for buying the well-advertised product with the proper label that speaks for itself.
  Industry can help consumers by persuading them to buy the advertised brand properly labelled. I have for many years been a persuader. I hope I have been a persuader tonight for the hon. Lady. I have had a lot of experience in trying to persuade the public to be interested and then to buy products. I have done this not as an advertising man but as a producer, not only in this country but in America, Japan and even Russia. On the number of occasions when I was in Russia and tried to persuade the Russians I confined myself to my products and not to my politics.
  I do not believe it is possible to persuade even some of the people for very long. The product will find one out, and so will the competition. One thought I would like to leave with the House tonight—which is relatively empty, though I hope my words will reach a wider number—and that is that I feel strongly when I talk about the freedom of the market place that there is one other element that makes the market place free, and that is freedom from monopoly. All I have said tonight would not be true if we were talking of monopoly. When a product fails in the market place because excessive claims have been made for it and competition has overtaken it, so does the company fail in a considerable way, and responsible manufacturers are well aware of these disciplines. The manufacturer therefore must serve the consumer as effectively as his competitors, and if he does not he will go out of business. I maintain that the manufacturer is in the business of consumer service and consumer protection if he is concerned with his own interests.
  I welcome this Bill. I welcome its general purpose, but I tried to show tonight that we must also preserve the freedom within the law of the market place. This Bill is the promise of a new law. Let us make this law serve the

  747
  consumers' interest, remembering that this interest is served not only by the law and the Board of Trade but also by responsible industry.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Ledger: I am not going to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in what he said about the Bill because I agree with so much of it. He showed considerable knowledge of the problems involved in having legislation of this kind, and a reasonable approach to the dangers inherent in advertising if they are completely free from legislation. There is one point on which I will take him to task. He spoke of his knowledge of advertising. I have considerable knowledge of advertising, as I was for six years a director of the largest cooperative society in the world, the London Co-op, I therefore have some idea of what is involved when dealing with consumers.
  The hon. Gentleman implied that the consumer was more alert today and a better buyer than he used to be. In this I would not agree with him. We need a Bill of this kind for a number of reasons.
  Mr. Crouch: I was quoting the Molony Report.
  Mr. Ledger: That may be so, but I think to that extent Molony was not quite accurate. One of the reasons why we need this Bill is the growing affluence of the consumers. They are less discriminating; they do not have to watch every penny as they did, for example, before the war when I was younger and not so interested in purchasing as I am now when I have a family. Parents then were much more careful because they had much less money to spend on clothes and food. It had to go further. Therefore, they had to look more carefully for products of good quality. Not only are people more affluent and, therefore, less discriminating, but more people are at work, including the women. Therefore, there is less time for shopping and possibly traders are getting away with more than they used to. Shopping can be a day out or an afternoon out. Millions of people today have to rush into a shop and rush out. They do not have the time to do their shopping properly
  748
  and therefore fall prey to unscrupulous people.
  Having looked through the Bill carefully, I am not clear whether it deals effectively with a system of trading which is growing faster than any other, namely, mail order, which presents a number of problems to the consumer who is much less protected than those who buy their goods from a shop. I wanted to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions on this matter. I have looked into it in the past few weeks in anticipation of this debate. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has looked into the points that I wish to raise.
  The Bill deals with misleading markings as to the country of origin, but it does not seem to deal with the problem of mail order. According to the advertising which is done—and I looked into this very carefully—it seems that the consumer does not know the country of origin until he has bought the goods. I should have thought, therefore, that protection was needed here. If the goods being sold by mail order are not British, the advertisement should specify the country from which they come. This clearly does not happen. I know of a number of constituents who have bought goods through mail order and have been astonished to find that they were of foreign manufacture. I am not saying that they were bad goods, but these people were a little unhappy to find, when it was too late, that the goods were of foreign manufacture.
  Another thing which does not seem to be dealt specifically in the Bill, although it is misleading, is the size of a commodity as shown in the advertisements. In mail order advertisements one finds time and again that a deliberate attempt is made to put the article against something else, perhaps the silhouette of a person, to make it appear to be much larger than it is. I have had a number of these items shown to me and, on comparison with the picture, there is no doubt that the consumer has been misled about the size of them. If he knew exactly what the size was, no doubt many of these commodities would not be sold.
  Another point which arises on the question of mail order is exactly what a person is getting. A number of examples of

  749
  this have been drawn to my attention. One concerned a rather large hanger for suits and trousers and shoes, which appeared to be: very nice from the advertisement. The consumer was astonished to find that it arrived in a little box about 15 inches long and 6 inches square, and that he had to make it up. There was no indication in the advertisement that the article had to be made up. Perhaps, on thinking about it, one might have thought that it would be difficult to despatch something of this kind made up. Nevertheless, if one bought it in the shop, it would be made up and one could see what one was getting. Therefore, on receipt of the goods the consumer was rather disappointed. Goods which are made up at home are rarely as substantial as goods bought in the shop.
  As far as I can see, the Bill does not cover that sort of thing. There is no protection against this sort of advertising. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would take the opportunity of considering this aspect of mail order. A lot of people are not happy about the tactics used. A manufacturer in my constituency drew my attention to the fact that a mail order firm was using in a catalogue brand names of a small number of items to attract attention, in the same way as loss leaders were used in grocery shops. Behind them was a mass of shoddy material and goods. The brand names were used to draw attention to the other items. I I wonder whether by hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can say whether the problem of the possible deceit of mail order has been considered and whether it is adequately covered by the Bill.
  It was not my intention to delay the House for a long time. In any case, most of the matters in the Bill have been raised. However, if my right hon. Friend would give some attention to this problem of mail order I would be very grateful to him.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: There are hon. Members who have come to this House to put in a plug for their co-operative societies and who have at least had the courtesy to remain for most of the debate——
  Mr. Ledger: It so happened that I was at a meeting I had this afternoon here in the Palace of consumers who had come today just because the Bill was being discussed, and that is why I have not been able to be in the Chamber all the afternoon.
  Mr. Goodhart: But most of the afternoon.
  This Bill has been called a shoppers' charter. If it is a shoppers' charter, it still does not seem exactly to have caught fire among hon. Members opposite. I regret that during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) there were on the benches opposite only two Members present, one of whom was the Parliamentary Secretary. This hardly suggests that this Measure has aroused burning enthusiasm among hon. Members opposite.
  I must say that I agreed with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) when he said that we as politicians ought not to take too sanctimonious a view of the trading community because, after all, if hon. Members were held accountable for their campaign statements in the way in which directors and chairmen are held responsible for balance sheets and prospectuses then the number of pending prosecutions might be very large indeed. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) suggested that the provisions of the Bill might apply to the nationalised industries. I wonder if they might and also to the politicians.
  Some time ago—February, 1966—the Secretary of State for Defence introduced a Defence Review and said it was to be the basis of the defence policy of this country for the next ten years. I got my copy of the Defence Review free from the Vote Office, but I have a number of friends who paid 1s. 9d. for that Defence Review with the idea that it was to be the policy of this Government, and for some time to come. Now, of course, that policy having been drawn up it has been totally reversed, and one wonders whether a case could be brought against the Secretary of State for Defence for a misleading advertisement. I could not bring a case because six months have elapsed since then and since he made his speeches about it. It suggests, at least, that one of the advantages of this Bill is that the

  751
  Government are going to have to stick to their policy for six months after publication of a White Paper.
  Mr. Darling: It is a very good job there is the six months, period, for otherwise we might go over the defence record of the hon. Member's party.
  Mr. Goodhart: Of course, most of the political misdescriptions are oral ones, and it is the Clauses in this Bill about oral misdescriptions which have aroused the most interest. The Minister of State this afternoon produced an array of arguments against Clause 4 which I certainly had not been able to think of myself. His arguments, it seemed to me, were that although there were these various risks of false descriptions by employees trying to get their employers caught on a hook this would not follow because the legal system of this country is so expensive that nobody in his right mind would bring a private prosecution, and that is a pretty harsh criticism of our legal system, or that the weights and measures inspectorate would prosecute only those who were guilty, those against whom a case could be proved. If the Minister of State follows that line of argument much further, he will find himself at the Home Office, because the Home Secretary followed much the same argument the other day, with not altogether happy results.
  Therefore, I have reservations about Clause 4, and we shall have to look closely at Clauses 23 and 24 which outline the defence procedure. But there are several measures in the Bill which I wholeheartedly welcome. I welcome Clause 7 which gives the Board of Trade power to define terms. Having spent many hours recently trying to obtain satisfaction for a constituent who had bought some waterproof boots which were not waterproof, I should like to see somewhere, at some time, a minimum definition of "waterproof" arrived at.
  I welcome also the Clauses which give the Board of Trade power to support and promote labelling schemes, particularly in respect of textiles. I note with regret that the Consumer Council, which is promoting the "Teltag" scheme for clothing, does not have the money necessary to promote it adequately. I am sorry that a reply which I received from
  752
  the President of the Board of Trade recently at Question Time suggests that its grant will not be increased in the coming year to enable it to do the work satisfactorily.
  I agree with the Minister of State that the nub of any Bill of this kind must come in the enforcement Clauses. The private consumer cannot be expected to use the substantial legal rights which he already possesses. In the last ten years, I have known of only one constituent who ever sought to use his rights in the courts under the Sale of Goods Act. He was a poor man and he received the normal amount of legal aid that it was possible to give him. He won his case, but to this day he complains that he lost it because he was, in fact, considerably out of pocket at the end of the case. There is, therefore, no reason to expect a consumer, unless he is a crank or fanatic in these matters, to seek legal protection himself. I am sure that the Bill is right to put the onus of responsibility for prosecution on the local weights and measures inspectorate.
  Like the Minister, I hope that this increase in the power of the weights and measures inspectorate will lead to more local consumer services of the kind which Sheffield and Bristol have. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether any increase in the strength of the inspectorate will be necessary to cope with the increased powers and responsibilities which it will carry? What increase—I presume there must be some—will be called for?
  That suggests to the hon. Lady that at some time in the future the name of the weights and measures inspectorate should be changed, because in this image-conscious day I cannot imagine many intelligent young men and women being attracted by a name which, to me at any rate, conjures up pictures of someone with a chain doling out porridge to orphans in some Victorian institution. I hope that at some future date the name consumer protection service will be substituted for the weights and measures inspectorate.
  I regret that the Bill has taken so long to reach the House. It has been rattling around in the pigeon holes of the Board of Trade for close on three years. This goes to show the low priority which the Government have given to the consumer,

  753
  because, ever since this Bill was first introduced in another place, we have had the Transport Bill which will do more harm to the consumer than this Bill will do him good. I regret that the low attendance this evening on the benches opposite is an accurate reflection of the priority which the Government give to the consumer.
  8.46 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shaw: I am glad to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), and to support him in his view that it is sad to see such a lack of support for the Bill from the benches opposite. Earlier this evening we were twitted about the fact that this was a pecularly Socialist Measure, or perhaps a Measure in which the Labour Party had a particular interest, yet it has been clear all through the afternoon that the genuine interest in the Bill has come from this side of the House.
  We have heard speeches by three Cooperative Members. They have claimed that theirs is a consumer movement which, above all things, looks after the interests of the consumer. I do not intend to denigrate the Co-operative movement, because it has a fine history, but it has been failing for the very reason that it has not been satisfying the consumer. To put itself right, it has had to go to private enterprise and get—I hesitate to call him this, because I have a great admiration for him—a whizz kid who had already built up a mighty empire to sort it out and put it on the right lines, which are the lines of private enterprise.
  Mr. Haseldine: I presume the hon. Gentleman is aware that the C.W.S., to whom he has alluded, is but one part of the Co-operative movement? Is he aware of the educational facilities provided within the Co-operative movement? Does he know of the large residential college the only one of its kind provided by a retail organisation—at which people are trained and prepared to undertake a good deal of work in social studies, and equipped to educate consumers?
  Mr. Shaw: I am very much aware of it, because I gather that in earlier times some of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke earlier were strongly connected with the
  754
  movement, and were it not for the movement the Labour Party's finances would be in even greater difficulties than they are at the moment.
  Mr. Haseldine: I think it would be advisable if the hon. Gentleman were to equip himself more fully with the facts before making that kind of statement, because he is wrong.
  Mr. Shaw: I am willing to debate this matter on another occasion. The hon. Gentleman has not denied the facts of the situation regarding the trading wellbeing of the Co-operative movement. Without the success of that movement the other things that go with it could not have been successful. So much for the Co-operative movement.
  There is a lesson to be learned, namely, that unless the public is served, they will go elsewhere. I am sure that the cooperative societies will learn this lesson and pick up again. They must have a good future, just as they had a good past. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree about that.
  I approach the Bill with a considerable amount of humility. There is a great improvement in the Bill in the change of title. The new title is an improvement over the old. In looking at the Bill, it is as well to look at first principles. Ideally, I believe in a free buyer and a free seller, and indeed in the old-fashioned phrase I heard the other day from the other side, caveat emptor. I accept that these conditions cannot apply in modern circumstances. We proved this in the laissez-faire period of the last century. The balance is never equal between the two sides to any bargain, be they in industry or on the shop floor. A significant feature is that once the balance gets out of line it becomes more and more exaggerated as time goes on with the advantage going more and more in a given direction. We are living in circumstances of extreme sophistication such as we have never had before. The disadvantages, if the market were left to the laissez-faire principle, would be more against the consumer than ever before.
  I do emphasise that whilst I regard the Bill as essentially supporting the interests of, and creating or restoring a fair market for, the consumer, I also regard it as a means whereby the fair trader himself is protected against the "phoney" trader

  755
  and the slick salesman. This is a very important side to the Bill. In many ways, I think a proper title is a fair trading Bill, because this is what it is.
  We have to accept that more people throughout the world are buying by description. No longer can people finger and test a few simple commodities on the shop side as they did throughout their lifetime. They know the traditional signs to look for to see whether the items are good or not. But new products are coming out the whole time and the expense of service is getting greater and greater so there is more self-service. Goods are laid out in the supermarket, or even in the one-man store. The consumer can then choose through the description on the package, which would not be like one given on television, since there would be no assistant to help him until he paid for the goods. He must take much on trust if the system is to work. The scales are against him, so this Bill is necessary to restore the balance.
  Clear draftsmanship is essential. One hon. Member felt that the Bill should be drawn so that everyone could understand it. That would be a little too much even for the most wonderful draftsman, but Molony says something in that direction:
  "We think, however, that legislation affecting transactions of everyday occurrence and touching the interests of everybody, as shoppers or traders, should be contained in a single enactment and stated in language as plain and simple as modern draftsmen can provide."
  The true meaning of "misrepresentation" is far from clear, although Molony said that it
  … must be an error of such substance that it could fairly be regarded as capable of inducing a purchase".
  I also agree with this.
  I have spoken about the growing complexity which faces the consumer and leads to a greater need for legislation like this. I studied the changes in oral misrepresentation right from the beginning of all things and wondered what would have happened about the oral description which the serpent gave Eve. Was it false or was it misrepresentation? When the serpent assured her that the apple was not fatal and she was tempted, was the serpent guilty of an oral offence? Would it have been different if the apple had been wrapped in paper printed with
  756
  the words, "Eat, drink and be merry", and, around the corner and invisible to Eve, the words, "… for tomorrow you die"? These are problems to which we shall never know the answers, but they will face us when the Bill becomes law.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Lyons: I had not originally intended to speak, but I was stung into doing so by the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) about the interest on this side in Measures of consumer protection. This Government promised in their election manifesto to increase such measures and the Bill is a considerable step towards redeeming that promise.
  Mr. Burden: What they are doing is implementing the recommendations of the Molony Report, which came out in 1962 and had been instituted by the Conservative Government so that they could legislate on its recommendations.
  My Lyons: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I was not aware that all Reports instituted by Governments were acted upon. This Government have acted on this Report and have also used independent initiative in relation to consumer protection. It was this Government which made consumer protection an issue in their manifesto. Although I can make no claim for this side of the House, I am well aware that there are only six hon. Members opposite. Yet they claim to have a greater interest in this subject than hon. Members of the Government side. It is regrettable that in a debate of this kind party matters should be introduced.
  I draw attention to the part which Citizens Advice Bureaux play in matters of consumer protection. There is often a feeling of helplessness among the worthy men and women who staff those bureaux when they receive complaints from consumers about their treatment in shops and over the purchase of goods. They do not feel able to advise competently that the consumer should go to law if they cannot get legal aid, although the amounts involved are only a few pounds. Because of that, staff of the bureaux feel impotent in face of incidents of bad quality and misdescription. That will be partly remedied by this Bill. Because of the important Clauses in the

  757
  Bill they will be able, over the heads of recalcitrant, dishonest or unscrupulous traders, to report matters to weights and measures inspectors.
  Those who wish to buy British will be helped if the country of origin is shown clearly on the label. To those who do not accept that the Empire still exists, the disappearance of the words "Empire made" will be a boon. When one buys butter nothing is more irritating than to find that the label says "including imported butter". One would like to know where the butter came from and what percentage of it is imported butter. All these matters are to some extent dealt with in the Bill.
  There was a time when cheap fountain pens were sold and they were bought under the impression that they were Parker pens. When one had paid for them and found that they did not write, one discovered that the name on them was P.Arker. They were Japanese. That would be an offence under the Bill. I am reminded of the story of a man who went to a hairdressers and saw a notice in the window saying, "What do you think! I cut hair for nothing." He went in and after he had a hair-cut the hairdresser sought to charge him. The customer said, "But on the notice in the window you say that you cut hair for nothing." The hairdreser said: "Oh no, the notice says, ' What! do you think I cut hair for nothing? That was a misconception, wilfully induced, which would be dealt with by this Bill.
  I know of a firm which has sales of fire stock, but that stock has never seen a fire. It is estimated that £83 million worth of damage is done by fire a year, but, seeing the stock in such a shop, one would come to the conclusion that fires occurred even more frequently than they do.
  For these and other reasons, I welcome the Bill. I welcome anything which helps to enlighten the housewife and give her a fairer deal. None the less, I am glad that certain forms of advertising will not be affected by the Bill. It will be an offence to use a Royal device to sell goods, but terms like "C.D.M." can be used with impunity. That will still give some entertainment and variety in advertisements, and in this world we should welcome variety and entertainment.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that it was through no fault of his own that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) was unable to be present earlier when the points which he raised in his speech were dealt with. I, too, welcome the Bill. Having sat here the whole day and listened to every speaker champion the cause of the consumer, even if I did not have the feeling earlier, I certainly now feel that the consumer is probably half dead, certainly half blind, probably has one foot in the grave, and has the greatest difficulty in putting two words together to make a sentence.
  In talking of the consumer in the way that we do we belittle him and the housewife in the way she does her shopping. I have been concerned with one limited aspect of the retail trade for a number of years. I have found the housewife to be very selective and difficult to please. If one is not up to the mark in service and price, one loses her custom in this competitive world. No matter how much legislation is passed, this ultimate sanction will always remain with the housewife. We must give her credit, whoever and wherever she may be, for the discretion and common sense that she exercises.
  I too hope, that this is the end of a long stream of consumer protection legislation which to some extent interferes with the whole sphere of retailing. The burden that this legislation imposes on manufacturers and retailers must not be minimised. They already have to comply with food and drugs provisions, weights and measures requirements, training board regulations, and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Now they will have to comply with the terms of the Bill. The burden of having to comply with a multiplicity of regulations adds considerably to the frustrations, of retailing and impairs their efficiency to do a real job in serving the public as it deserves.
  What worries me most about the Bill is the use of the word "misleading". This introduces a very subjective standard. Its difficulty has been recognised on all sides. In the Food and Drugs Acts and Weights and Measures Acts, the standards are scientific to a certain extent; there is a definite standard to go by. The Bill will

  759
  be much more difficult to comply with, and it lays on inspectors a much greater responsibility than they have previously had to bear in interpreting existing Measures. I hope that it will be interpreted in the most intelligent and sensible way. In those towns which do not have the benefit of experience of cities such as Sheffield, I hope that weights and measures inspectors will not rush bald-headed into trying to apply regulations but will do so gradually and with common sense.
  The Minister of State paid tribute to the value of voluntary discipline in advertising administered through the Advertising Standards Authority. In the control of advertising under Clause 9, I hope that a great deal of care will be exercised. There would be a particular difficulty in television and small advertisements, for example, in applying the same kind of requirements about description and information as there are for packages and display material in shops. I hope that this will be interpreted as sensibly as possible, especially in view of the experience of voluntary discipline.
  On Clause 11, I support what my hon. Friends have said about genuine price reductions. They are a perfectly legitimate tool of sales promotion and persuasion. If the Clause is applied too strictly and there is a risk of losing the benefits of genuine price reductions, the housewife will bear the cost. It will put into the retail trade a great deal of rigidity which might not otherwise be there.
  I hope that the Minister will try to spell out more clearly, perhaps in Committee, how the Government see the Clause being applied. The best thing will be to redraft it in a slightly more intelligible and practical manner, as has been suggested.
  There is also the problem of a manufacturer marking a price reduction on a particular product. This is stated on the package, which goes into the shops through a wholesaler without any recommended price from the manufacturer, who passes on a perfectly genuine reduction in his wholesale price. After it leaves his control, the question whether the reduction is passed on becomes the retailer's responsibility. What is the position where a manufacturer makes a
  760
  genuine reduction in his wholesale price, if the retailer is found not to be passing it on? Is it the retailer or the manufacturer who is responsible?
  On Clauses 25, 26 and 27 concerning enforcement, I wish to follow up what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said about the adequacy of existing weights and measures staff. It is a question not merely of their adequacy but their training and fitness for the job. I appreciate that the hon. Lady may not be able to answer tonight, but I should like a reply on the adequacy of weights and measures staff in Scotland. It was said in another place that where local authorities were stretched, it might be possible to recruit a fresh staff who would not necessarily require all the experience and qualifications of normal weights and measures staff. But if that happened, we would lose the advantage of weights and measures staff to carry out the other responsibilities and obligations under the Bill.
  I hope that Clause 27 will be used sensibly, particularly in relation to the seizure of goods. One can see justification for seizure in relation to food and drugs, where public health may be affected, but it is more difficult to see how intrusion into the premises of retailing firms and possibly wholesale and manufacturing firms for this purpose can be justified. I hope the hon. Lady will answer that point.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: No signs of wild enthusiasm have marked our debate, but many points have been raised and I hope that the hon. Lady will be able, in the short time she has taken at her disposal, to answer them. Much as we support the Bill, it is a mistake to over-emphasise its importance and I do not regard it as the last chapter in the history of consumer protection. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) suggested that this was the end of Molony. I regard as far more important an attempt to deal with the so-called guarantees and warranties that manufacturers put out which totally deceive the public into thinking that they are getting some additional protection,

  761
  whereas they are taking away from the consumer a great deal of the protection he would get under the Sale of Goods Act. There are many other examples of work still to be done.
  The importance of the enforcement provisions of this Bill has emerged clearly. This was indeed the text of Molony. Many of the examples of fraud and dishonesty given by hon. Members are already illegal and offences under the Merchandise Marks Act. The difference between what is to come in the future and what has been the case in the past is not so much in the substance of the law, although that is somewhat altered by this Bill, but in the degree of enforcement.
  As Molony said in paragraphs 680 and 681,
  "As matters stand, there is no effective enforcement of the Acts and because enforcement is lacking, ignorance of its existence and provisions is general among traders and the public.
  We attribute the defective enforcement of the Acts to the fact that no single authority is placed under an obligation to police their observance and proceed against offenders."
  In fact, those Acts were something of a dead letter and I am glad that there is now to be a duty, not a discretion, on local weights and measures authorities to proceed. That is a duty placed upon a prosecuting authority, and a recent case, connected with gaming and the police, showed that the prosecuting authority does not have a discretion to sit back and do nothing but must get out and win arid that the courts will make it do that duty if it is seen not to be doing so. This is a great change which the Bill may bring about.
  But prosecution is expensive. If one wants to bring a prosecution before a petty sessional court with some hope of success, it costs £300 or £400 in the experience of many private prosecutors. I am not sure that I altogether accepted the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there will be no prosecution unless the prosecuting authority is certain of victory. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) that no prosecutions will ever occur on that basis. One can never be certain of victory. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will not adhere to his view.
  762
  I am interested in the fact that he has included services, rather at the last moment. I say this because part of the importance of enforcement and prosecution lies in the powers given to the weights and measures inspectorate, and the authority to make test purchases of goods. That is given by Clause 26. Obviously the enforcing authorities quite rightly attach great importance to this.
  For some reason such a power is not given either to the weights and measures authority, or to anyone else as far as I can see in the case of services. There is no power for the primary prosecuting authority to make tests to see whether the services come up to the trade descriptions applied to them. That is one of the reasons why it seems that the effect of this upon services has not been altogether thought out, and that services have been rather thrown in at the last minute, much as I support their inclusion.
  Another example is in Clause 35 where there is this long provision as to how market researchers may be excluded from the operation of the Measure by taking samples, which they are apparently obliged to do. If one looks at the wording of the Clause, it will be seen that this does not apply to services, only to goods. That again leads me to believe that the application for services has not been thought out, because presumably market researchers need to do research in this direction, as regards laundries, dry cleaners and so on.
  So much for the enforcing authority. It is primarily to be upon the local weights and measures department. I hope that the Government will seriously consider writing into the Bill some sort of obligation making local authorities employ chief inspectors of weights and measures. These are excellent men whose Institute, as the Minister of State may know, is rather worried because, although most local authorities do use them, there is no obligation upon them to do so, and any local authority official may be charged with this task. It seems that it would be good for their image, and I very much support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham that sooner or later we must change their name. They should be consulted about this change.
  That is the prosecuting side of the enforcement. What about the judicial

  763
  side? Here I must support those of my hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who have given a very good idea of the difficulties of enforcing a Bill of this sort before the lay magistrates.
  I wish somehow that the draftsmen of this Bill, the Government and all of us in Committee could have before us a mental picture of a lay bench. I mean a typical lay bench with, for example, a former manual worker who has done well in the trade union movement, a lady with a twin string of pearls and a jumper, presided over by a farmer whose mind is very much worried and distracted by foot-and-mouth disease. Every single Clause in the Bill has to get home to them. It is not like the Misrepresentation Act or any of these other Acts, which we passed recently designed to protect the purchaser in many cases. The latter is interpreted either by the county court or the High Court; this Act has to be interpreted by lay magistrates. It is impossible to achieve, by the piling of words upon words, exceptions upon exceptions, the sort of perfection which the experts and devotees of this matter would wish to achieve. If that is done, one so overloads the system with perfection that it becomes, in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, "too clever by half". That is my chief objection to the inclusion of oral misdescriptions, as it was of the Molony Committee. The Committee was quite clear on the matter and said that it was purely on the grounds of the difficulties of enforcement that it excluded oral misdescriptions. We will want to be convinced by the Government that that fear of the Committee is unfounded in the case of persistent misdescription. If the Government do that, we will not oppose the principle in the case of a persistent and obviously dishonest oral misdescription.
  Another example of the failure to visualise the sort of court which will have to interpret the Act and others like it is the degree of fines and penalties which they can impose. There is no doubt that a court of the type that I have described regards £25 or £100 as a great deal of money. It has been the experience of
  764
  those who have sought to get at dishonest traders and manufacturers, many of whom have made fortunes out of mis-description, that the only sort of fines that they get are these relatively small sums. If it is to be a sanction against such behaviour. as it should be, the psychology of the bench before which these matters will be brought must be considered carefully.
  I believe that the Board of Trade will have to take a much more forward attitude on prosecutions than it has in the past. It has acted very much in the way of the Minister of State, who made a Freudian slip when he said, "We will only prosecute where we are certain of a conviction." That has been the Board of Trade's policy under the Merchandise Marks Act. It must now abandon that attitude and exercise its powers as a prosecutor to a greater degree than in the past in the case of national advertisements or campaigns and other matters which are more than of merely local importance. We shall approach the Committee stage of the Bill very much on those lines.
  One or two matters have been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the debate, and the first of them is the Title. I would regret it very much if the Government did not take their defeat in the House of Lords in a sporting manner. The Trade Descriptions Act was the Title recommended by the Molony Committee in paragraph 613 of its Report. It is a good Title, because the Bill deals with everyone who makes a purchase, and not just consumers. People who buy and who are damnified by some misdescription need not be consumers. They may be middle men or people of that sort. For that, if for no other reason, it seems to me that the original Title was inaccurate. tendentious and foolish.
  I have already said what 1 think should be done about Clause 4 and oral mis-descriptions, and I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in saying that in the case of door-to-door salesmanship and in other cases where there has been persistent abuse, in spite of all the difficulties of proof, it may be necessary to keep the power.
  We greatly fear the drying up of information which is liable to happen in the retail trade among small shopkeepers

  765
  whose staff are 75 per cent. school leavers—young and inexperienced in many cases—who will be instructed to say nothing for fear of giving an oral misdescription. That would be to break faith with the small retailer who was assured at the time of the Resale Prices Act that his place in the retail trade of the country would always be preserved because he gave the service of advice and of conversation, and this distinguished him from the supermarket which was totally impersonal and where that service was not given. If he is to be put in terror by the possibility that one of his assistants should, negligently maybe, but certainly not dishonestly, give a false oral misdescription, I think it is not playing fair with the members of the retail trade who are in that situation.
  Clause 9 deals with the necessity for putting information into advertisements. I would remind the hon. Lady, when she comes to justify this, that this was one of the things Molony said was not just undesirable, or difficult to work, or not proven. The words that Molony used in paragraph 758 were "patently impossible". It seems to me to require strong justification indeed to take powers to command advertisers to put this sort of information into advertisements when the Molony Report has said that to take such powers and use them was patently impossible.
  Clause 11 has, I suppose, caused more controversy in another place than anything else. I am bound to say that it is an extraordinarily sorry story on the part of the Board of Trade. Anyone who reads the reports of the debates in another place finds that day after day Lord Brown says that the Board of Trade have not been able to find a redraft, but that the next time they meet they will have one. At the end of the debate in another place Lord Brown said, "We are still looking, and next time it comes before the public we shall have one".
  It is not discussed here, but, for technical reasons, a new Bill is produced—the No. 2 Bill—and the Board of Trade still does not know what should be in Clause 11. I know the Board of Trade is very busy. It has much on its mind on such questions as the third London airport, but I wonder, now that it has decided to do the right thing about the third London airport, if it could
  766
  switch its mind and produce its re-draft before we get to the first day of the Committee stage. It does not seem to us to be asking too much.
  It would seem to be foolish to launch an attack on Clause 11 as it stands. We do not like the inclusion of a recommended price, not only because recommended prices are going out but for the reason touched upon by my right hon. Friend, that it is a standing invitation to those to deceive the public to get their supplier to recommend a price unduly high so that they can say "We are quite in the clear. Here is the recommended price and we have slashed it by 30 per cent". Therefore, "recommended price", apart from the vagueness of the term and the fact that two men and one woman, of whom I have tried to paint a picture, will have to be satisfied about what is meant by it, is a standing temptation to dishonesty. I hope that the term will be excluded.
  Whether the Government will ever be able to find a formula for reintroducing a comparison with other traders—the comparison which was by consent removed in another place—I do not know, but there is something in what the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said, that this Clause was devitalised, that its teeth were removed, in another place. There is a great deal to be said, in the confusion in which the Board of Trade finds itself, for going back to the suggestion of the Moloney Committee that there should not be a separate Clause at great length employing more and more words and confusing lay magistrates more and more, but simply an inclusion in Clause 2(1) of unfair price comparison, in the same manner as there are unfair quality comparisons and unfair place of origin comparisons. That would be found to be less difficult than the method which the Government have chosen.
  We hope that because the Bill has already gone through another place the Government will not dig in their toes on Amendments in Committee. There is always a temptation for a Government which has got a Measure through one House to resist Amendments in the second House because it is an awful nuisance for it, particularly when it comes up against the buffers at the end of a Session, to send it back again for further

  767
  arguments in its place of origin. I therefore hope that that very natural but quite artificial—if things can be both natural and artificial—tendency will not apply in the present case.
  I should have thought that this was eminently a Measure which needed improvement and simplification but which in essence was worthwhile, because even if its aim is limited, as I think it is—namely, to get the Merchandise Marks Act and allied Acts off the Statute Book and to put in their place a comprehensive, simple 20th-century protection against the sort of description about which we all know—the very limited number of cases but nevertheless serious cases do a great deal of damage to consumers and trade in our country. I promise the Minister of State and the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary that we shall do all we can to help to achieve that object. We hope that in return we shall receive the sort of co-operation which we expect.
  9.38 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): One of the good points about the wide-ranging and exhaustive debate which we have had has been the welcome given to the Bill by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There have been differences of emphasis, but it is encouraging that it is widely recognised that this is a Measure of consumer protection which can assist not only the customer, the person who buys, but the reputable trader.
  I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I begin my remarks with a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who so ably moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that his natural modesty forbade his telling the House how much work he has done in consumer protection. I feel that today's Bill is a great tribute to his past efforts.
  Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the various bodies already involved in consumer protection. We have had mentioned the Consumers' Association and the Consumer Council. I hope I shall be forgiven if I follow the remarks of my hon. Friend who mentioned the excellent work done by the Citizens'
  768
  Advice Bureaux, because I feel that in the whole field of consumer protection they do so much good work that it is right that we should pay tribute to them also during the debate.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) mentioned the question of the Consumer Council and its Teltag scheme. Of course, it is true that the Government are always very anxious to see exactly this sort of voluntary action which the Consumer Council has put into operation. The hon. Member mentioned the question of the amount of money which the efficient working of this scheme would require, and I think it is of interest to say that the amount of cash allowed to the Consumer Council has increased year by year under the present Government, and if we are not able to give it all the financial assistance we would like to do this is very much more from a practical consideration, and not from want of good will. It does seem to me that with the increasing difficulty which the consumers find in identifying the various materials and the complex make-up of the goods they are buying it is no longer possible simply to rest on the old case of caveat emptor. The consumer requires the assistance of information from manufacturers, and this Bill is really going a long way towards assisting them in this.
  I should like to turn to one matter in relation to the proposed powers to impose marking requirements which my right hon. Friend described. This is important from the point of view of our international obligations because. although it does not appear in the Bill itself, any requirements to mark imported goods with origin will as a general rule be made only under the powers provided by the Bill. The only exception is the requirement imposed wholly or partly for agricultural reasons where special considerations apply and for which the criteria in the Bill are riot wholly appropriate as, for instance, in the case of seeds. Whatever legislation is used we shall, of course, act in accord with our international obligations, and if any action is taken in relation to horticultural, agricultural or fishery and related goods orders, as stated in Clause 36, it will be taken jointly with the agricultural Ministers. All existing Orders requiring specified classes of imported goods to be

  769
  marked with an indication of origin will continue in force for a period of up to three years after the Bill comes into force. This interval will allow proper consideration to be given to the case for making new orders under Clause 8, to replace them where this is appropriate. Whether it is appropriate will depend on whether continuation of compulsory origin marking seems justified in the interests of consumers of the goods concerned who may include industrial and trade users as well as private consumers. Any new orders which are made would normally have to apply equally to home-produced as well as imported goods, and will, usually, require the actual name of the country to be given.
  I hope the House will forgive me if I work through the Clauses in order, in an attempt to answer as many as possible of the points which were made by hon. Members. I have made a note of the important Clauses which I think are of interest to the House.
  On Clause 3 the whole question of misleading descriptions was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) as well as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). On the point which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery raised on the actual wording of the Bill and the need for clarification in simple English I, of course, like him, come from a nation which understands the use of words, and naturally approve of simplification in all legislation. Although I would hesitate to take issue with hon. and learned Gentlemen on the subject of their own profession, one must remember that the problem for the Parliamentary draftsman is to include an exact definition and to deal as accurately as possible with the conditions which the Bill will apply.
  Now, the whole question of overlapping offences. It has been said that some acts will constitute an offence both under this Bill—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was worried here—and under other legislation, in particular weights and measures and food and drugs legislation. This seems inevitable since the offences are drawn in different terms in different statutes, and there would often be no
  770
  clear dividing line between them. To avoid serious anomalies with weights and measures and food and drugs legislation, we have included special provision in Clause 21.
  In general, however, we would expect prosecutions to be brought under the appropriate specialised legislation where there are overlapping offences. Consideration of the Medicines Bill, for instance, which will replace part of the present Food and Drugs Act, may show the need for provisions to avoid anomalies or to reduce overlapping with this Bill, in which case the points can be taken care of in the Medicines Bill itself.
  There has been a good deal of discussion about oral misdescription. Hon. Members on both sides have raised this problem. We expect that the House will wish to look closely at the details of our proposals to make oral misdescription of goods an offence, but we can see no justification for distinguishing between this means of misdescription and any other. It makes no difference to the customer—I say this as one who has suffered—whether the application of a false trade description is spoken or written. It is suggested that the new provision will inhibit retailers from giving the sort of information and advice which the customer would need. But is it not better for the customer to be given no information at all than to be given wrong information?
  It is true that the Molony Committee came down against this provision, but it admitted that it was a finely balanced decision and recognised that it might require review. We consider, as the Molony Committee did, that oral misdescription is a real problem which is not likely to abate, and we remain firmly convinced that its prohibition is justified. Retailers must accept responsibility for statements by their employees and see that they are adequately instructed not to make unjustifiable assertions about goods which they are selling. But, if they take reasonable precautions to avoid this kind of offence, they should be able to rely on the defences which the Bill would provide. The whole point is that the reputable trader will take such precautions and will be adequately protected.
  The hon. and learned Member for Darwen conjured up a wonderful picture of his imaginary bench. I must say that

  771
  I was rather worried about his lady who was wearing only twin pearls and a sweater. If nothing else, she might be rather cold. It is important that this provision is left in the Bill for the reasons I have stated.
  I come now to Clause 9, the question of advertisement orders. It has been suggested, in effect, that some of the powers sought in the Bill, particularly those to require information to be given with goods or in advertisements, might be used to specify unreasonable requirements. These powers have certainly been drawn widely to embrace the many and varied needs which—unforseeably at the moment—might arise during the lifetime of this legislation. But, equally, we have been careful to draw them so that they can be used with the necessary degree of flexibility. If the Board wanted to make an Order under the Clause requiring information to be given in advertisements for a certain class of goods, it would have to specify in it those descriptions of advertisements which were to be covered. It would not, therefore, have to require the information to be given in every form of advertisement—this was one of the points raised during the debate—or to require the information to be given in the same manner, or to the same extent, in different forms of advertisement. What could reasonably be fitted into a large advertisement in a newspaper, might be wholly impracticable in a brief television flash, and we would, of course, expect to make a commonsense approach where such distinctions were appropriate. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that we shall not use these powers lightly or frivolously.
  It is important to note that the Board could use these powers only after adequate consultation with all interested bodies—I think that this covers the point made by the hon. Gentleman who was anxious that we should include the advertising bodies in the appropriate cases—and after publishing due notice of its intention. We would expect to draw—indeed we would need to draw—on the experience of others who have wrestled with the problems of drawing up such requirements. And of course if, despite the efforts of the Board of Trade, the Order emerges in a form which overlooks some pitfall or special problem, Clause 35(1)
  772
  puts a remedy in the hands of Parliament.
  Now I come to Clause 11 on prices, because this was one aspect of the Bill which was raised earlier today. I think that most people will agree that false claims about the prices of goods are objectionable. The difficulty is to draft a Clause which will deal effectively with them in all the wide variety of forms that they may take. At the moment, in Clause 11, we have a provision which I believe would deal in a reasonably enforceable and effective manner with a number of such claims. It would cover those cases in which a person makes a false comparison between the price which he is currently charging for goods and the price which he has charged for the sale of similar goods in the past, or between his current price and a current recommended price. Subsection (2) would also cover the case where a person marks the price on his goods in such a way as to give the impression that they are being sold more cheaply than they really are.
  But there are other sorts of false claims with which the Bill does not attempt to deal, but which it has been argued it ought to cover. There are three sorts in particular, namely, false comparisons between the seller's price and the price currently being charged by other people, false claims about the worth or value of goods, and the quoting of "phoney" recommended prices.
  When the predecessor of the Bill was introduced in another place, Clause 11 covered false comparisons with other people's prices, but it became clear that as it stood this prohibition would face enforcement authorities with insuperable problems. Consultations were held with various bodies in an attempt to improve upon it, but no one was able to put forward a practicable enforceable solution. In the end it was decided that it was preferable to drop the prohibition altogether, rather than continue it as it stood in the knowledge that it could rarely be enforced.
  I would like to emphasise that we do not regard Clause 11 as necessarily being in its final form. We should be happy if we could find some practicable way of extending it to deal with some of

  773
  the other abuses in the field of comparative pricing, particularly "phoney" recommended prices, and false comparisons with other people's prices. We must plead guilty to being in the state that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that we are still thinking about this, and we are consulting anyone who might help. We shall be very willing to look into any solutions that anyone may put forward. If we can see some means of improving Clause 11, we shall put suitable amendments forward, though at this stage I can give the House no assurance that improvement will prove possible. Having said that, I think that detailed discussion of the difficulties of dealing with the other sorts of claims would best be left until the Committee Stage of the Bill.
  Clause 21 deals with overlapping offences, with which I think I have reasonably dealt.
  Clause 23 concerns the question of defences which I also mentioned, and Clause 25 deals with the problem of local authority prosecutions. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East emphasised that they were anxious that the prosecutions should be for flagrant offenders. I would point out that this tends to ignore the case of the one person who might be in difficulty with someone who is normally a reputable trader. It would exclude that person from the sort of provisions which we are deliberately trying to write into the Bill.
  Sir K. Joseph: For the record, my emphasis was on flagrant and persistent offences in connection with oral misrepresentations, not with any other part of the Bill.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I apologise if I have in any way misled the House.
  Clause 32 deals with trade marks. The Bill does not reproduce the offences in the present Acts relating to false application and forgery of trade marks which have, with the passage of time, become of less a id less practical value. Nowadays it is generally recognised that the interests of trade mark owners are covered by trade marks legislation under which the owner of a mark can seek compensation, for infringement in civil proceedings.
  774
  Concerning consumer interest, Clause 32 provides that, except in certain specified circumstances, the fact that a trade description is a trade mark does not prevent it from being a false trade description. The use of a deceptive trade mark, which is very uncommon, is thus covered by the general prohibition of false trade description. Much the same arguments apply to patents.
  Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East suggested that we should advise the local authorities. We will also deal in Committee with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) about staffing of the weights and measures authorities.
  There is a poem which says:
  "We are the people of England who have not spoken yet."
  I think perhaps that the women shoppers of this country may occasionally come into this category. I am sure that this Bill is one of the most practical steps that we can take to assist the ordinary consumers to get the sort of protection that they not only desire, but to which they are entitled. I welcome the Bill most heartily.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  TRADE DESCRIPTIONS [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to replace the Merchandise Marks Acts 1887 to 1953 by fresh provisions prohibiting misdescriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament into the Exchequer of Northern Ireland of sums representing the expenses incurred in enforcing in Northern Ireland so much of the said Act of the present Session as relates to matters with respect to which the Parliament of Northern Ireland does not have power to make laws.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I realise that this is narrowly drawn and the question is whether it is too narrowly drawn. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we are much concerned with the enforcement provisions in the Bill and that money may be necessary to strengthen them. Would he undertake that if, during the debates in Committee, it should prove necessary, he will move another Resolution so that we should not be inhibited from discussing expenditure for enforcement?
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I can quickly give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance which he wants. He will remember that, in the original Bill, in——
  It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Education and Science may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Crossman.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that there was a standard money Clause in the 1966 Bill, but there has now been a change in the expenditure from central Government to local authorities and that part of the Money Resolution is no longer needed. The Board of Trade does not need to ask for money because we already prosecute under the Merchandise Marks Acts and that will be carried forward into the Bill. I can give an assurance, however, that we will not seek to restrict discussion in any way in Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the activities of the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department and to report thereon this Session.—[Mr. Crossman
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: I should announce that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in line 2, leave out ' and the Scottish Education Department '; and the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), in line 4, leave out ' seventeen ' and insert eighteen '.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in line 2, leave out ' and the Scottish Education Department '.
  I wish to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for pursuing this matter at this late hour after an arduous week for the House, during which I have also wearied your patience considerably. But this is an important matter. I wish to protest most strongly on behalf of my Scottish colleagues about their shabby treatment in this business being conducted at this time of the week and at this time of night.
  Many of my Scottish colleagues would have liked to be present if they had had sufficient warning. I have to apologise for many hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies who were up all last night on the Transport Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), for instance, asked me to apologise because he has been working hard all week on the Transport Bill and was up all last night. He would have liked to be here to underline my point of view.
  Then there is the Chairman of the Scottish Labour Group. He also was up late last night. I have been approached by other right hon. Members. For example, the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) was very anxious to take part in the debate. [HON. MEMBERS:" Where is she?"] If one is not given proper notice of what is coming
  778
  on in the House, there is perfectly legitimate reason for hon. Members being absent. I can make these apologies for hon. Members because it is essential that, if Scottish business is to be transacted, reasonable notice should be given to Scottish Members——
  Mr. George Lawson: Is my hon. Friend saying that the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) was up all night and all week?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I did not say that. The hon. Lady is not on the Transport Bill Committee. So far as I know she is not on any Committee of this House, but she was elected for Hamilton and she is entitled to be treated with the ordinary courtesies of this House. We are giving the hon. Lady something which is very important in this House, a genuine grievance. She protested at Question Time, as I did, and asked that this business should be postponed until hon. Members had an opportunity of giving thought to it.
  This Motion appeared on the Order Paper only this morning. This matter was commented on in the Scottish Press this morning. It is a matter of extreme importance at present that we should maintain the rights of the people of Scotland, especially in view of the criticism of this House made in many quarters in Scotland. If the opinion grows in Scotland that this House is being steamrollered and hon. Members are not given time properly to consider what matters very much to Scotland, we must not be surprised if the unorthodox parties have a legitimate grievance against the way in which the business of this House is managed.
  I am not a nationalist of any kind. If I were asked to define my attitude towards nationalism, I would say, in the words of Tom Paine:—
  "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
  I say this in reference to the importance of the movement which is arising. Although I am not a nationalist, I want good government. I want modernised government. I want the affairs of Scotland, of Wales and of England to be conducted in such a way that they are conducted for the benefit of the people of all countries.

  779
  I may have to talk at some considerable length, but this is a very important matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have been invited by the Leader of the House to keep on. I could keep on for a very long time. The Leader of the House tempts me. I remember once speaking through two sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker is not tempting the hon. Member.
  Mr. Hughes: I quite understand that you, Mr. Speaker, are not tempting me. I recall the famous saying of Oscar Wilde:—
  "I can resist everything except temptation."
  The Leader of the House says "Keep on". I could keep on as long as the House is interested in what I have to say. I appeal to the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, to withdraw this Motion and to let it be considered next week or the week after, because it is not right that hon. Members should be treated in this way.
  In spite of my momentary differences with the Leader of the House, I pay tribute to the way in which he has tried his best to modernise this Parliament and in order to——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will come to his Amendment I hope.
  Mr. Hughes: I was approaching my Amendment because it deals with Select Committees and Specialist Committees. May I explain to you, Mr. Speaker, if you are not already informed, that the Leader of the House has been a pioneer of Specialist Committees. In relation to this Motion he has played a very active part. The Motion says that we should appoint 17 hon. Members to form a Committee to consider education and science. This is one of the new Specialist Committees. I wish it good luck. The modification put in this morning would empower the Committee to investigate, not only the education system in England and Wales, but also the Scottish Education Department. This has caused considerable interest in the Scottish Press. Today's Glasgow Herald carries an article headed
  "Ross gives way on Scottish Office inquiry".
  This is of immense interest to the people of Scotland. Apparently there has been
  780
  some difference between the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Scotland on this important issue. I do not know what the inner differences have been. As a result of a considerable feeling, two Scottish Members have been added to the Committee. Of the 17 Members who are to form the Committee, two will be Scottish Members and the other 15 will be English Members. I do not know where the Welsh Members come in. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) has not yet discovered this.
  This is not in the interests of education in England or in Scotland. I want first to put the case for the English. I believe that this Committee has been appointed because it is the view of hon. Members that a Specialist Committee is needed to discuss the problems of education in England and Wales. We all know that these are important and pressing questions. I have consulted English Members of the Committee. I have no objection to the personnel of the Committee. I have nothing to say of the hon. Members who are to be appointed.
  If this Committee is necessary in the interests of education in England and Wales, surely there is enough to inquire into in England and Wales without the Committee wandering over the Border to discuss problems in Scotland in which the English Members are not interested. If these 17 Members meet, an agenda will have to be prepared. If the English Members are anxious to discuss certain aspects of education and science, which is an overwhelmingly important question, they will naturally draw up an agenda covering the aspects in which they are interested. Where would Scotland come in then? Obviously the 15 English Members would not want to wander into Scotland before they had conducted their examination of the problems in England. Therefore, the English Members, with whom I have had conversations, are entitled to object to this procedure, because if they are to carry out their work properly they will concentrate on England and Wales first and on Scotland next. The problems of England and Wales are so pressing that I cannot see that poor old Scotland will be reached for another five years. It may be said that we cannot draw the borderline between education and science in England and in Scotland.

  781
  But the education systems in both countries are different. Questions of education in Scotland are referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I was educated in Wales and England. When I went to Scotland I found that its education system was different. I speak with considerable experience, because I have been a member of a local authority in Scotland; I have probably the longest continuous experience of local government of any hon. Member. I believe that from 1928 to the present time I have been interested in one way or another in problems affecting government and education. I have been on a county council and a Scottish education authority. There is enough difference in the systems to justify a special committee of Scottish Members dealing entirely with the Scottish aspects of education and science.
  Dr. Johnson once wrote in his memoirs after visiting Scotland that in Scotland there is a school which they call an academy. He was mystified, and if English hon. Members come to Scotland to investigate education there they will come across the strange word "academy" in its educational connection. The ordinary definition of academy is that there are pictures about the place, but in Scotland the secondary schools are academies. I live in a little town where there is an academy, which is the opposite number of a fairly big English or Welsh secondary school. Therefore, the 15 non-Scottish Members on the Committee will have to learn a new vocabulary.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the word "academic" is not unknown in England? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Mr. Hughes: My right hon. and hon. Friends are glad of any help at all—even academic help. I was talking of the noun, not the adjective.
  If that argument does not convince, I turn to another matter which hon. Members will understand, the question of corporal punishment. In England they use the cane and in Scotland they use the strap. Whether the difference matters much to the pupils is another
  782
  question. I only mention these facts to show that there are two different systems and they deserve two different inquiries.
  Let us come to the larger question of education administration. When one goes on to a local education authority one finds that there are Catholic schools and that there are priests, Church of Scotland ministers and so on on the education committee because of the different religious set-up.
  I think that I have said enough to prove that the systems of education are so entirely unlike in England and Scot, land that Scotland is entitled to its own Specialist Committee conducting its own researches in its own way. We have very difficult problems in Scotland. The rector of the academy to which I have referred tells me that it is short of science teachers, with the result that a large number of students who wish to take that subject have to take something else.
  The shortage of science and mathematics teachers is pronounced in Scotland. There is the whole problem of teacher supply and the future of education for the next generation. As one who has spent a lifetime dealing with these problems, I know that they demand serious investigation and that they should get it from Scottish Members of Parliament. In the light of what I have said, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should be prepared to withdraw the Motion in order to give the rank and file of Scottish hon. Members an opportunity to discuss this Select Committee and the need for research and inquiry.
  I am sure that English, Scottish and Welsh Members alike ought to say to him that he has no right to foist this kind of compromise on us at such short notice and if necessary we will test it in the Lobby.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that this is a most inappropriate evening on which to discuss anything relating to Scotland. It is all very well the Leader of the House frowning and looking bemused, but Scotland is a long way away.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State may shake his head as he likes, but he knows that those of us who are active in various parts of Scotland usually catch the train which we should have caught tonight. His own colleagues from Glasgow usually do. This is not a simple matter and, in itself, is unsatisfactory. I am giving the Leader of the House time to compose himself, since clearly he thinks that Scotland is not far away either. It may be that he needs to think more closely about it.
  It is desirable that the Scottish Office be taken under scrutiny. The question is how to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) pressed the Leader of the House on this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not deviate from our view that the proper answer is a Select Committee of this House on the Scottish Office, with sub-committees to deal with its various departments. That is the right answer in the present context which in turn does not mean that I deviate from my belief that, in the end, a Scottish Parliament for Scottish affairs is the true solution.
  Nonetheless, I am very conscious of the presence of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the interest that he must have taken in this. I have always believed that it is better to have something rather than nothing. It is a very old argument about a loaf and half a loaf and no bread, but it is not an argument which loses much of its validity with the passage of time, although one can sometimes say that the bread can be so mouldy as not to be very desirable at all. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has made valid criticisms about the suddenness with which this appeared on the Order Paper, and the fact that most Scottish hon. Members have fully committed themselves. It is all very well for people to shake their heads and say that there are priorities. This is true, but we know that occasionally hon. Members are forced to seek priorities outside the House.
  How does the Leader of the House propose that this Select Committee should operate in regard to the Scottish Education Department? The Select Committee on Science and Technology and its subcommittee,
  784
  which was set up to deal with the question of the "Torrey Canyon", affords a precedent. The Leader of the House is not altogether thirled to precedent. That is a word which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will understand. If he is not completely thirled to precedent, there is this precedent, and there are others in the Services Committees of the House when a sub-committee is set up to deal wholly and specifically with a particular matter. We already have the hon. Members for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) and Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) on this Committee.
  Can the Leader of the House tell me if it is his intention that when the Select Committee deals with the S.E.D. it should do so not as a full Committee but as a sub-committee with co-opted members, as was done in the case of the "Torrey Canyon"? I mean Scottish co-opted Members, dealing with something in which they have an interest rather than dragging up Members who are not particularly interested. This would in no way affect the interim measure that he has introduced. I am all in favour of the Scottish Office being scrutinised.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the suggestion that the 15 English members and the two Scottish members shall co-opt certain Scottish members? How are they to be chosen?
  Mr. Johnston: The choice of Committees of this House has always been a deep mystery to me, and I am not sure that it is not so to the hon. Member also. There are some so-called channels through which this is done. This is not the most important point. Is it the Leader of the House's intention, in dealing with the S.E.D., not to put it at the end of the queue, which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire rightly said might happen, but to have a sub-committee of this Committee to deal specifically with it, with the two Scottish Members already on it representing a base, in the same way as the "Torrey Canyon" sub-committee had a base on the Committee of Science and Technology?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I must press for an explanation on this. In a Scottish county council or a Scottish local authority, any co-opted members are co-opted by members of the authority. Is

  785
  it his intention that these co-opted members should be nominated by members of the Committee, so that the Scottish members would be nominated by 15 Englishmen?
  Mr. Johnston: No, I certainly do not mean that. I am certain that this is not by any means the normal way in which a Committee of this House is chosen. What I mean is that the interested parties, if I may use that phrase in a double-edged sense, would discuss together which Members they would wish to have representing them.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire quoted the Glasgow Herald. Perhaps I might quote the editorial in the Scotsman, which is a very influential newspaper in Scotland. It made two points this morning. It supported in part the contention of the hon. Gentleman when it said:
  "The Committee on Education will naturally be chiefly concerned with the work of Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker's Department … It cannot be expected to carry out with thoroughness the job of inspecting the S.E.D., and most of its members will have little knowledge of the distinctive features of the Scottish system."
  It went on:
  "… the best method is a Select Committee on the Scottish Office. In that case, Scottish administration would be examined by M.P.s with the most knowledge of the subject and the strongest Interest in finding out, for the benefit of voters as well as themselves, how the departments execute policy."
  If we had an assurance from the Leader of the House that the S.E.D. was to be dealt with primarily by a sub-committee of the main Committee, that would meet the valid point which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, the Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald and many other influential people in Scotland have made.
  10.31 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: Perhaps I might begin by saying to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that I have no complaint about this Motion coming up tonight. It was no shock to me. In a modified form, it appeared on the Order Paper last Thursday, and it may surprise the hon. Member for Inverness to know that it was not only hon. Members on the Liberal benches who noticed it. Hon. Members on this side of the House representing Scottish
  786
  constituencies also noticed it, and took exception to the form in which it appeared.
  I noticed it, and I had a word with various people. It may be that my word is a little more influential than that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), because due heed was taken to my objection, and it was withdrawn. My objection was a valid one, but it was not that there was no reference to the Scottish Education Department. It was to the fact that there were no Members representing Scottish constituencies on the Committee.
  As its terms of reference were then drafted, it was to consider the activities of the Department of Education and Science, which covers universities. That was our second objection. I did not object because the Scottish Education Department was not included. Although I think that it is a mistake to include the S.E.D. I carry no grudge. I think that it is unnecessary. But what my colleagues and I wanted was the recognition that very important universities exist in Scotland, and come under such jurisdiction as the Minister is able to exercise over universities at large. Indeed, one of the matters that I should like to see considered is the lack of jurisdiction of Ministers over universities. As a result of London University practices, Scottish educational standards are not recognised, and Scottish students are handicapped when they want to take London external degrees. That is a complaint which I should like to see dealt with by a Select Committee which was considering the activities of the Department of Education and Science. We need not bring in the Scottish Education Department at all.
  Like my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies, I insist on our right to representation on United Kingdom Committees. We do not intend to be banished to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stirling or any other place. We recognise and feel ourselves to be British, very British. We feel that people down here in the South need us as much as we need them.
  We insist that we should be given our due place in regard to United Kingdom matters. This was my objection last Thursday. I take it to have been just an oversight. My hon. Friends and I do

  787
  not like being passed by. But I can excuse it. There was recognition of the mistake, and an attempt to put it right was made right away. In fact, the attempt has gone further than I wanted, by bringing in the Scottish Education Department. But I wanted recognition of our existence in relation to United Kingdom matters, a recognition that this Committee was a United Kingdom Committee dealing with the universities, which covered Scotland as well.
  My hon. Friends and I wanted due Scottish representation on the Committee. The reason why there is not a battalion of us here tonight is that we got what we wanted. It is wrong for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire to say that it is because we were up all night. I was not. But my hon. Friends who were up all night would have been here now if they had felt that there was something to be fought for. But now it is sufficient to leave me here. I can look after their interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) is here too. He will back me up if any backing is necessary; but I do not think it is.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend agrees that the formula is inaccurate; it does not meet his request. If so, what is his objection to having it delayed for a week so that he may adjust it according to his own argument?
  Mr. Lawson: True, it goes further than I felt was necessary. Perhaps it is a belated recognition of our importance. All right. I accept that we shall require—I do not think there will be much opposition to it—a Select Committee to deal specifically with Scottish affairs. In that category might come the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness. I do not think that there will be objection, and the powers that be will see the sense of doing that.
  At this stage, the Government are doing all that we wanted—in fact, more than we wanted. For this reason, although I do not often appear to be a staunch supporter of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, tonight I am. I say, "Go ahead, but keep in mind that at a later date we may ask you to set up a Select Committee covering
  788
  Scottish affairs". At this stage, neither my Scottish colleagues nor I have any complaint.
  10.38 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: This discussion fascinates me, for two reasons. First, I regard the process of creating Specialist Committees as important in itself. My right hon. Friend dn. Leader of the House deserves great con, gratulation for pressing ahead with them. Second, I recall that, when the Specialist Committee on Agriculture was created, we had something of a furore because Scotland was not included. There were great demands at that time that there should be some sort of representation from Scotland, and eventually that was conceded. We now seem to have he opposite argument, that Scotland should be kept out of this Committee or be given some Specialist Committee of its own. There seems to be a genuine and interesting discussion developing about the kind of field over which these Specialist Committees should range and what their composition and terms of reference should be.
  In this particular case, my inclination is for a wider than for a narrower composition and field of study. The Select Committee on Science and Technology did not stop at national boundaries but carried out a lot of interesting investigation in the United States and on the Continent of Europe. I think that there is a lot of value in the comparative method of study, in looking at different systems and comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of universities. I believe that there is a good deal to be said for a Committee of the House to look at the Scottish system, which involves a four-year initial degree course, and compare it with the English system which has a basic three-year course. There are other differences in the systems which would need to be examined, and I am not convinced that a comparative analysis of some aspects of the English and Scottish systems might not throw up interesting ideas and suggestions for the House to consider.
  We seem to have struck an interesting point in the evolution of these Committees. I think that perhaps there ought to be further study of the nature of

  789
  Scottish representation and the remit for Scotland of these Committees, and I think that this discussion in itself is quite a useful contribution to that.
  10.41 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for putting down this Amendment—one does not often say that—because it gives me the opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said, to see how we are progressing in this experiment of Specialist Committees. I emphasise that this is still an experiment. We are still feeling our way, and I am grateful for all the ideas which have been put forward in this debate.
  I must start by dealing with the criticism of myself about the timing of the Motion. The criticism was made rather sharply this afternoon during Business questions by the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), who managed to be present then, when no doubt the Scottish Press would print what she said, but has not been able to stay for the debate. I do not think that there is any real excuse for complaining on a Thursday afternoon, when there is plenty of other time, about when we discuss a Committee dealing with the United Kingdom. I resent the fact that people criticise me in the afternoon, but cannot be bothered to turn up in the evening for the serious debate.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely my right hon. Friend is being rather unfair to the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing). Is it not normal, having looked at the Order Book, to make one's arrangements accordingly? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman put his Motion down earlier in the week, to give everybody an opportunity to be here?
  Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the point I was coming to, because I want to explain the origin of this Motion. I need not explain it to my hon. Friend, because he knows it, but he did not mention it in his speech.
  Some time ago I gave an assurance that on the 14th of this month I would table a Motion giving the names and terms of
  790
  reference of the Committee on Education. I kept my word, and when I put it down on that date there was some criticism from Scottish Members. I want to explain what happened. I am an innocent from south of the Border. I thought that what was good enough for agriculture was good enough for education. I therefore thought that I would put down the same terms of reference for education as for agriculture. But I made a mistake. I put down the same terms of reference, but left out Scottish Members. The moment it was pointed out to me, I realised that this was a grievous error, although it is true that on the Agriculture Committee, after some differences of opinion, we reached an amicable modus vivendi, which enables us to discuss, with Scottish Members present, a number of subjects common to both countries.
  Unfortunately then we had a Committee on education, which was English in its terms of reference, and wholly English and Welsh in its selection of Members. I withdrew the Motion, and asked myself how I could put it right.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose——
  Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend need not interrupt me, because I have repeated what he knows.
  That meant that I needed to put it down for this week. My hon. Friend knew that there was nothing surprising about this. He had seen the original Motion. He knew that I was modifying it to meet criticisms made from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend must pay attention to what I am saying.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to correct my right hon. Friend. He is not a dictator in this place.
  Mr. Crossman: I say, with all courtesy, that my hon. Friend can correct me when I have completed my argument. I listened to him with interest.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: If my right hon. Friend gives way now, I shall make my comment and then keep quiet.
  Mr. Crossman: I therefore consulted with hon. Members on both sides about the best way to correct the terms of reference, and we decided finally to include the Scottish Office and to add Scottish Members. I am well aware that this is

  791
  a compromise solution which is unsatisfactory, but I thought, on the whole, having heard the objections from both sides, that this was probably the least unsatisfactory solution——
  Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose——
  Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend is so impatient. I thought this was probably the least unsatisfactory solution to have. So we drafted it, after careful consultation, to include the Scottish Office and two Scottish Members.
  I am the first to say that this is an experiment which will not necessarily last. It is something that we tried to do—it is the first time we have had education—to see if we could operate it successfully.
  Hon. Members have asked me if I could tell them how the Select Committee will work. Would it, for instance, have a sub-Committee? I think that was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston). I know enough about Select Committees not to tell them how to do their work.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend finished with me now? My right hon. Friend when he wanders into Scotland is simply bewildered and unreliable. May I ask him what study of Scottish agriculture this Specialist Committee on Agriculture has undertaken? Has it been to Scotland? Has it done anything for agriculture in Scotland?
  Mr. Crossman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would be stretching your rules of order were I to loom into agriculture. However, foot-and-mouth disease is not limited by frontiers. This is one United Kingdom subject which Scottish Members on the Committee can study along with us.
  I have not had a word of complaint, apart from my hon. Friend, from the present Members on the Committee. They have found it a useful Committee to be on.
  I turn now to the central issue which was raised seriously by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness. The question is whether we study departments or subjects. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley spoke as though it was a Committee on Education. It is not. We were seeking two experiments: one studying departments and the other
  792
  studying subjects. The Committee on Science and Technology studies subjects. There is no doubt that the subject Committee has proved itself easier to run than the departmental Committee.
  Mr. Derek Page: To help hon. Members to make up their minds on this Amendment, will my right hon. Friend bearing in mind the experience of the Agriculture Committee, say whether the Select Committee is to have a chance to have its report debated if and when it makes one?
  Mr. Crossman: I should not have thought, in discussing the terms of reference of the Committee, we should discuss whether the House debates its report. This is a different subject. We are now discussing a Motion about the terms of reference and membership of this Committee. I was pointing out that we have varied the formula from the Committee on the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  It is arguable that subject committees are, on the whole, better and easier to work. Because these national frontiers are overcome, we do not have the difficulty about Scotland and England. It may be that in the final resort we come only to subject committees; but we were pledged to try out a departmental committee. Therefore, we tried it out on agriculture, not as a topic, but as linked to a department. We thought that we would make a second experiment. Instead of having an English and Welsh Department with Scottish members on it, we thought we would try the English and the Scottish Departments with both English and Scottish members on the Committee, and see how it worked.
  I cannot say how well the committee will organise itself. It will have the power and authority to set up a subcommittee. If it comes to the House and asks for a sub-committee for this purpose, which it has to do, I would advise the House to give it permission. That is as far as I can go.
  There are a number of subjects which it could discuss which are what I would call United Kingdom subjects. One was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). He is right in saying that universities in the United Kingdom are United Kingdom subjects, but all the Members of this

  793
  Committee can study the whole subject of higher education in universities extremely fruitfully by comparing the two sides. In my view, teacher training is broadly similar. Research Councils, which are under the authority of the Department of Education and Science, the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council, are not delimited by frontiers. They are also subjects which we can usefully discuss on a United Kingdom basis. Thirdly, I give the example of fee-paying schools. We have interesting comparisons to make about fee-paying schools on both sides of the Border.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Milk in schools, too.
  Mr. Crossman: And milk in schools. My hon. Friend is coming over to my side, as he always does in the end.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As this is a Select Committee dealing with a Department and is experimental, as I understand it, I presume that it has power to investigate the Welsh Department of Education, which is a separate Department and which comes under the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It does not come under the Welsh Office. This distinguishes it from the Scottish Department of Education. As Wales has its own Departmental problems, it seems rather odd that there is not a single Member representing Wales on the Select Committee.
  Mr. Crossman: This is a point which could have been raised earlier in the form of an Amendment. I am sure that in principle the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. I cannot discuss the question of Welsh Members being on the Select Committee, because there is no Amendment to that effect.
  I turn, finally, to the proposal for a Scottish Specialist Committee. This seems to be a perfectly serious proposal. I have had extremely serious proposals for a Welsh Specialist Committee. This would be a different way of dealing with it in terms of the region—may I say "nation"? It is dangerous and highly controversial to use that word. Whatever we call it, it is this different part. There is much to commend the view that there could be a Committee which dealt, I would not say with the Scottish
  794
  Office, but with Scottish affairs. We do not want it separately in terms of the Scottish Office. This is something which we might well study in the House.
  I have had constant pressure from this side of the House for the last four or five months to consider the case for both a Scottish Specialist Select Committee and a Welsh Specialist Select Committee. If we had such Committees, there would be the problem of manning and of staff. There is a severe limit to the number of Committees we can have. If we are to have United Kingdom Committees on subjects, Departmental Committees and regional Committees, we shall soon have so many Committees that there will be nobody to man them. It is a question of working out which is the best formula. My own suspicion is that the subject formula is, on the whole, easier than the departmental formula. If there was one I might drop, it would be the departmental one, and I would keep the subject and the regional, or whatever else we call it, because I think that these are the two which clearly have the biggest demand.
  I hope that the House will accept this explanation, and accept that I do regard this as experimental. I am grateful for the suggestions which have been made. I would ask those who have tabled these Amendments to withdraw them so that we can have a unanimous agreement to this Committee, because I believe that in its present form it is practicable. It is high time we set it up and let it get to work.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the activities of the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department and to report thereon this Session:
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: I beg to move, leave out 'seventeen' and insert 'eighteen'.
  Ever since the idea of specialist Committees was first mooted my party has very strongly advocated the idea. We

  795
  have put it forward in our election manifestoes. We have developed it in the various debates the House has had on parliamentary procedure in recent years. We have tried to enter into the activities of these new Specialist Committees as and when they have been set up. Hon. Friends of mine are on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the Select Committee on Agriculture and the Sub-Committee dealing with coastal pollution. I had thought on the basis of those three precedents that an hon. Member from my party would be appointed to any future Specialist committees, until I saw on the Order Paper the list of hon. Members appointed to this very important new Select Committee dealing with education.
  I entirely agree with all those hon. Members who have emphasised what an urgent task the Select Committee must undertake. It was therefore with great disappointment that we found that no hon. Member from our party had been appointed. I was interested to hear the Leader of the House say at the end of the last debate that we were reaching a position where we had a problem in manning Committees because there were so many that there was nobody to go on them. He said that we had to watch that situation if we were to appoint further Sub-Committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) suggested, to deal with Scottish education. If that is so, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome hon. Members willing to put in a good deal of time on the Specialist Committees.
  Therefore, I beg him to consider the Amendment favourably and to increase the Committee's size by the very small amount we suggest. It would mean that my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who has great knowledge of education, has been interested in the subject for some years, and has a great deal to contribute, might be appointed to the Committee.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes Mr. Emrys Hughes rose——
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Whenever hon. Members say "Oh" like that I know 'hat I am right——
  Mr. Lubbock: Especially when they are Ministers.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I agree.
  This debate again shows how hastily the Committee has been drawn up. When a Committee has been decided on. the Liberals are entitled to a fair share on it. I would go further and say that if the electors send nationalists here they are entitled to be on a Committee. I have some doubts about the way some of the Committees are hand-picked. There is too much whippery-pokery. The Whips have far too much say in these matters, and that is not democracy.
  The Amendment makes the position of Scotland worse. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has sitting next to him a distinguished member of the Educational Institute of Scotland, an experienced school teacher with a knowledge of education in Edinburgh and Inverness, a qualified person who has been to an academy and a university, and has specialised knowledge of everything required.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: May I quote all that in my election address?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Certainly. There is no copyright in HANSARD. It might do the hon. Gentleman good and it might not. I do not know; I am an embarrassment.
  What is happening here shows how hastily and ridiculously the whole business has been conducted. I agree that the Liberals are entitled to have a member on the Committee, but instead of putting up a distinguished Scottish Member, which would go partially to meet my case, they propose an hon. Member from Cornwall to go to Scotland to investigate——
  Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to all the distinguished qualifications of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness which he mentioned, he is also a member of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland, which is occupying a great deal of his time?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: He should not grudge at least a little of his time to education if education is so important.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. On this Amendment,

  797
  we are discussing only the size of the Committee.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the Liberals want to vote on this issue, I will vote with them on it. I think that the Liberals are entitled to have a representative on the Committee, although they could have made a wiser choice.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Crossman: In my view, the Liberals have little cause for complaint about their representation on Select Committees. I reckon that they have 50 per cent. more involvement on our Select Committees than their numbers justify.
  I see their point. They would like to have a member on each Committee and attend when they like, because there is a difficulty for members of small parties. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is a superb attender at Specialist Committees, but I had a calculation made about his party, and on at least two recent Committees his party's representatives have managed an attendance of 40 per cent. That is because if members of a small party get themselves on to all Committees, they cannot attend. Therefore, it is not fair for the Liberal Party to complain that they are underrepresented on Select Committees.
  Since there is clearly disagreement about which of the Liberals should be on the Committee—whether it should be an Englishman or a Scot—I hope that we will leave the size of the Committee unchanged.
  Mr. Brian Parkyn: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the great power of a Select Committee is the fact that it represents the House as a whole, and, therefore, that the Committee would be strengthened by having a member of the Liberal Party on it? It is a question not of whether the Liberals have a right to sit on the Committee or whether their representation is proportional, but rather of whether the Select Committee, as a Committee representing the views of the House as a whole, would be strengthened.
  Mr. Crossman: If we had parties more evenly balanced so that they were all evenly represented, we might be more even in our representation, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that size and numbers must have something to do with representation on Committees.
  798
  We have 15 Select Committees. The Liberals have representatives on seven of those Committees. That is far more than is justified by their numbers. I do not begrudge it them in the least—I am delighted; but when they want even more, I should like to consider it. Nobody, however, should say that by our present method of selection, the Liberals are under-represented on Select Committees.
  Mr. Hooson: Does that mean that a Nationalist would never be represented on a Select Committee, or that an independent Member of the House could never hope to be a member of a Select Committee?
  Mr. Crossman: No, it does not. It means that if people say that they are under-represented, I am entitled to give the figures.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would have wished that the Labour Party, and not Nationalists, would capture by-elections, but if the electors send a Nationalist to the House of Commons, does my right hon. Friend adopt the attitude that that elected Member is not entitled to be on any House of Commons Committee?
  Mr. Crossman: The answer is, of course, "No".
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to
  Resolved,
  That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  Mr. Walter Alldritt, Mr. Ronald Bell, Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Stanley Henig, Mr. Richard Hornby, Mr. Gilbert Longden, Mr. Kenneth Marks, Mr. Richard Mitchell, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Trevor Park, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. Arnold Shaw, Mr. van Straubenzee, Mr. Frederick Willey, and Mr. Esmond Wright to be Members of the Committee:
  Power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:
  Four to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Crossman.]

  STANDING ORDER No. 90 (WAYS AND MEANS MOTIONS)
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions) be amended, as follows:
  Line 4, leave out from ' section ' to ' and ' in line 6 and insert 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968'.—[Mr. Crossman.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Select Committee to consist of sixteen Members:
  Mr. Brian Batsford and Mr. Michael English added to the Select Committee for the purpose of their consideration of the arrangements for the experimental sound recording of the proceedings of the Ho u se.—[Mr. Fitch.]

  CLEAN AIR [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for abating the pollution of the air, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under section 13 of the Clean Air Act 1956 out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to smoke control areas.—[Mr. MacColl.]

  CIVIL DEFENCE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  11.5 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I am glad to have the opportunity to draw attention to a subject which affects every home and family in the country. An Englishman's home is his castle and civil defence organisation is the last ditch defence of every Englishman's hearth and home. It is the moat of every Englishman's castle.
  Broadly speaking, since the end of the war every citizen has known in the back of his mind that, whenever disaster of any
  800
  sort should occur in peace or war, there was civil defence organisation of some sort which would come to the rescue quickly and efficiently. In 1966 and 1967, the Government cut the civil defence estimates but an adequate skeleton force still existed to reassure the population and—very important—to help to make our nuclear deterrent power credible.
  On 2nd February, 1966, there was an important statement of policy by the then Home Secretary:
  "I am now able to state … the outcome of the Government's review of home defence. We have concluded that, despite the reduction in the risk of a nuclear conflict, we cannot discontinue civil defence preparations. There is always the possibility of war arising from misunderstanding or miscalculation; and we cannot be certain about the future spread of nuclear weapons.
  Our studies confirm that, in the event—fortunately unlikely—of a nuclear conflict, sensible civil defence preparations could do much to save lives, to relieve suffering and to help the nation to survive as an organised entity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1089.]
  In March, 1967, there was a Ministerial statement in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who said:
  "… no one can say that all danger of a nuclear attack has disappeared, and … no Government worthy of the name could leave its people helpless in the aftermath of such a disaster."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords,22nd March, 1967; Vol. 281, c. 784.]
  Last summer, the then Home Secretary addressed the General Council of the W.R.V.S. in the same sense.
  That was the situation until, out of the blue, on 16th January this year we had this statement by the Prime Minister:
  "We have decided to reduce Home Defence—Civil Defence—to a care and maintenance basis, with a saving of about £14 million in 1968–69 and £20 million in 1969–70 and in subsequent years. This will involve the abandonment of the Civil Defence Corps, the Auxiliary Fire Service and the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve Category III."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1968; Vol. 756, c. 1588.]
  At one stroke, the Prime Minister of Great Britain achieved several things. First, he cast away the last line of defence of every home in the land; secondly, he tore up all the pledges and reassurances of his Ministers on this subject; thirdly, he cut the throat of a very valuable part of the Territorial Army; fourthly, he poured scorn on the enthusiasm and patriotism of all the volunteers

  801
  of the Civil Defence, the Auxiliary Fire Service, the T. & A.V.R. III and, in effect, upon all the various voluntary bodies and associations who work with them—such as the W.R.V.S., the Red Cross, St. John, the Industrial Civil Defence Service, the Auxiliary Nursing Services, the National Hospital Service Reserve, arid so on, and also that dedicated band of Civil Defence officers who train the Civil Defence Corps.
  The Prime Minister has, in effect, with one stroke of the pen done something which Hitler entirely failed to do with all his bombs and horror weapons throughout the war. He has really wounded the morale of thousands of volunteers who give their time for their country.
  Even now, more than a month after the announcement of this new policy by the Prime Minister, no explanation of any sort has reached the working level of the civil defence organisation as to what is meant by "care and maintenance" arid how this incredible policy is to be implemented.
  Perhaps the first question I should ask the Minister tonight is—why not? Why have the Government not had the common courtesy to inform the people who work for them what this policy means? The first word that has appeared about it appeared in today's Defence White Paper. This says
  "So far as is practicable, existing physical assets will be preserved."
  Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether this means that the telephones will not actually be torn out by the roots but will be left until they are choked up with cobwebs? Another phrase in the White Paper was
  "… training and planning will continue at the minimum level … to enable more active preparations to be resumed, if necessary, without too much loss of ground."
  Perhaps the Minister will say how this will be done without the volunteers, and also what is the meaning of this rather sinister phrase "without too much loss of ground."
  Last week I asked the Under-Secretary what factors were taken into account when the decision was taken to reduce civil defence to a care and maintenance basis. His reply was
  802
  "The current level of civil defence expenditure, our financial circumstances, and the risk of a nuclear attack." [OFFICIAL. REPORT, 15th February, 1968; Vol. 747, c. 1552.]
  As to the current level of expenditure, can he tell the House how this compares with the civil defence expenditure of other countries in the N.A.T.O. alliance, or even neutral countries such as Sweden, Switzerland. And what about the Russians—what do they spend on it?
  I can give him the answer about the Russians. Every Russian student over the age of 16 has to take compulsory evening training in civil defence, and it is obligatory for every new building in Russia to contain beneath it an air raid shelter. This is the point of view they take about it.
  Perhaps the Minister could also tell the House how much is being spent by the British Government in N.A.T.O. on the N.A.T.O. early warning system, and explain what is the point of this early warning system if there is no civil defence organisation for it to hand its warning on to.
  As regards his point about our financial situation, could the Minister say what additional bad news there is, not yet revealed, which makes it necessary to abandon our last line of defence in war? If we cannot afford 7s. per year—that is three halfpence per week—per head of the population, which is what civil defence costs, is there any financial bad news not yet given to the House?
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. I have listened with great interest to what he has to say. He keeps referring to this last line of defence. Could he tell me in what conceivable circumstances, in the event of a hydrogen bomb war, there would be any efficacy in this defence if the people involved would themselves be swallowed up in the conflagration?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I can certainly give the hon. Member a quotation from the Home Secretary on this. He said:
  "Careful studies show that should the almost unthinkable, almost unbelievable, happen, we could do something to relieve suffering and maintain a national framework by sensible and economical preparation. One must take account of that and do one's duty in this respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1092.]

  803
  To come to the nuclear point. As regards the likelihood of nuclear attack, what new information have the Government received which reduced the risk of nuclear attack to vanishing point? That is the logic of their new policy. A major nuclear war is very unlikely, but we shall not be sure for perhaps 50 years that it will never, in any circumstances, occur. What new or different appreciation have the Government made on this, and have our Allies reached the same conclusion as us? I hope that the Minister will not quote the non-proliferation treaty, because early in February a deputation visited the Home Secretary to inquire what change in the international situation permitted the new policy.
  The Home Secretary, I am told, replied "the non-proliferation treaty". This is a treaty which has not yet been signed and with which in any case, two major nuclear powers, France and China, have said they will have nothing to do. Will the Minister tell the House about this and confirm or deny that this was the Home Secretary's answer to the deputation?
  I have a final point about peace time, not a post-nuclear period. Does the Minister appreciate the value of having an organised, disciplined body of people with some transport and communications, who are used to working with one another and know their own districts, in order to deal with peace-time disasters? The headlines in recent times include the Hither Green disaster in the which the A.F.S. was so useful, the "Torrey Canyon" incident, when the T.A. helped out, the recent gales in Scotland, the foot-and-mouth epidemic, the constant risk of flooding in the Thames at certain times of the year, the Aberfan disaster, and so on.
  It is worth remembering that even before there is any question of a nuclear war, but in times of strained international relations, one could get a situation like that which arose in the United States over the broadcasts when Martians were supposed to have landed. This was an Orson Welles programme, and apparently the populations of several large cities rose and began to stream out to the countryside in conditions of great difficulty. This is the sort of thing that one can visualise, and the sort of thing that no prudent Government, no Government
  804
  worth their name, could afford to ignore. The noble Lord Lord Stonham in his statement in another place said, and this sums up the situation very well:
  "… an efficient Civil Defence Service is a vital necessity under present conditions."
  That is to say, under peace-time conditions. He went on to say:
  "… I may say that I would not be standing at this Box and would not be a Minister if I did not believe that the task of Civil Defence … was not viable and credible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords,22nd March, 1967; Vol. 281, c. 783.]
  He added that it was not only there that he would say that. Will the Minister be man enough to say the same thing?
  11.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) has expressed himself strongly on this issue, as he often does. His case has been weakened by overstatement, but nevertheless I welcome the opportunity of this debate in order to say a little more about the Government's decision, announced by the Prime Minister on 16th January, 1968, to reduce Britain's home defence to a care and maintenance basis.
  As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he put a Question to me, asking if I would summarise the reasons for the Government's decision in one sentence. I said that the Government took three considerations into account—the current level of civil defence expenditure, our financial circumstances, and the risk of a nuclear war. It may be helpful to elaborate a little on what I meant by those three points. Expenditure on civil defence may be compared with expenditure on an insurance policy and spending money in this way, the Government is insuring against an unlikely contingency. The consequences of nuclear war are now so terrible that it is difficult to believe that any country would willingly provoke such a conflict; but, until nuclear weapons can be brought under effective control, the possibility remains, however unlikely it seems, that they might one day be used against this country.
  So long as that possibility remains, the Government have a responsibility to assess the risk, but it also has a duty

  805
  to consider the size of the premium, both in relation to the risk involved and the capacity of the nation to pay. The Government have decided that, in our current economic difficulties, we cannot afford the premium needed to insure on the present scale. The previous programme of public expenditure would have cost between £25 million and £27 million a year, and the revised programme will save about £13 million in 1968–69 and about £20 million in subsequent years.
  It would be difficult to argue that the risk of a nuclear war between the major power blocs has completely evaporated, but few people would argue that it has not diminished in recent years. The world is less and less divided into two great monolithic blocs. It is true that there has been no outstanding developments in the field of disarmament since the end of 1966 when civil defence was last reorganised and expenditure on the Civil Defence Corps was reduced, although the prospects of a non-proliferation treaty have certainly improved.
  At the same time, our financial circumstances have changed and it is this fact which has forced the Government to take many hard and difficult decisions, of which the decision to reduce home defence was only one. It has, I am sorry to say, been typical of the party opposite that they have been demanding a reduction in public expenditure while opposing almost every decision taken by the Government in that direction. I emphasise that the Government do not dispute the general desirability of civil defence measures, but it is a question of the scale which we can afford, having regard to the whole situation. We have reduced our premium, and we recognise that the cover has also been reduced.
  A great deal of publicity has, quite rightly, been given to the decision to disband the three volunteer services, the Civil Defence Corps, the Auxiliary Fire Service, and the T. & A.V.R. 3. I have great admiration and respect for the public spirit and devotion of those volunteers who have so willingly given their time to the public service in the past, and I fully understand that the disbandment decision must have come as a shock and a disappointment to many thousands of such people up and down the country. Yet this decision was inevitable once the Government had decided
  806
  that substantial economies were necessary, because the total cost of the volunteer services amounted to almost half of all civil defence expenditure. As the Prime Minister has said, our present financial circumstances have forced us to take many hard and difficult decisions, and these decisions are hard and difficult precisely because they involve the sacrifice of much that all of us recognise as desirable. If we are to make the economies which are imperative in present circumstances, we must give up many desirable things and, after considering all factors, including the present international situation, we decided that we could no longer maintain civil defence preparations on their present level.
  Unfortunately, the Government's decision has been interpreted by some hon. Members, and by people outside this House, as a decision to abandon all civil defence preparations, but this is simply not the case. What we have done is to stop further development of our civil defence preparations, while taking steps to preserve our physical assets of operational value in such a way as to allow more active preparations to be resumed at some future date if the situation should demand it. So far as practicable, operational buildings and equipment are being preserved, along with the knowledge and expertise that will be necessary to enable us to raise the level of civil defence preparations, rapidly if necessary, at some future date.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the sort of time scale about which he is talking for reactivating the organisation?
  Mr. Ennals: It depends. No doubt it would take some months to bring together all the volunteers and organise the force again, but the nucleus of the control and communications systems is there and will be reactivated immediately. To bring together the volunteers would take a longer period of time. If the international situation worsened and fears were to increase, one would expect that to be the sort of situation which would lead any Government to recognise that a number of matters needed attention to deal with it.
  We are retaining and maintaining the structure of the control system which is

  807
  designed to provide for an effective emergency system of decentralised control from the level of regional government right down to the individual local authority. The premises will be preserved, and the communications kept in working order.
  Parallel with and complementary to the emergency system of control, we have the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, which includes the Royal Observer Corps. The purpose of this organisation is to provide public warning of an actual attack, and afterwards to provide information about the location and power of the nuclear weapons exploded, and the distribution and level of radioactive fall-out. It is a vital part of our preparations, and it is complete. It can be brought to operational readiness very quickly.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: What is to happen to the Radiac instruments previously issued to the civil defence organisation?
  Mr. Ennals: I should like to have notice of that question. No doubt that is a point which might be taken up on Thursday, when, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we shall have a full day to discuss civil defence.
  In any nuclear disaster, we should expect to have the assistance not only of regular members of the Armed Forces stationed in this country but also of the regular police and fire services, who will continue to be involved in civil defence planning and for whom training will be provided at a level sufficient to maintain existing knowledge and techniques.
  The overall scale of training in civil defence matters has been drastically reduced to secure the necessary economies. But training has not been abandoned. Emergency training for the fire service will continue to be provided centrally at the Fire Service Technical College at Moreton-in-the-Marsh, but on a smaller scale than hitherto, and it is likely that some general emergency instruction will also be included in normal peace time courses. For civil defence training, other than in fire fighting, as I told the House at Question Time last week, we shall retain the Home Office school at Easingwold, Yorkshire.
  808
  Easingwold will serve the whole of England, Wales and Scotland, and it will have an important part to play in keeping our civil defence preparations up to date. It will provide courses for the national Warning and Monitoring organisation; background and general planning courses for those having continuing responsibilities in planning and central Government and essential industries; courses of a more specialised nature for persons with special responsibilities like senior police officers or medical officers of health; and courses designed to maintain within the local authority sphere a small nucleus of civil defence instructors who can maintain a knowledge of techniques, procedures and skills and upon whom any reactivation of local authority training can initially be based. In addition, Easingwold will provide a venue for studies and conferences on civil defence matters.
  The Government's intention is that emergency planning both in central and local government should continue at the minimum level needed to allow more active preparations to be resumed without too much loss of ground.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked about consultation. Active consultation is proceeding with the local authority associations about many of the details, and there may be points which can be brought out during the debate which we are to have on Thursday. A circular was sent to local authorities almost immediately after the Prime Minister's statement, and many of the uncertainties will be filled in as a result of the consultations which are taking place with the local authority associations.
  I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that the Government's decision to reduce expenditure on civil defence does not mean that we have abandoned all civil defence preparations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made suggestions that, for instance, we were leaving the country defenceless and we were in breach of pledges which he quoted from statements made by my right hon. Friend now the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from my noble Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office. In fact, civil defence continues but it continues at a much reduced rate.
  Various proposals have been made that the volunteer services should be allowed

  809
  to continue in one form or another. Members of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service individually and in local units have offered to serve without bounty or other direct payment. We appreciate the spirit in which these offers are made. They show the enthusiasm which the volunteers have for the work they have been doing. But, unfortunately, it is general administration costs and expenses resulting from the use of premises and equipment rather than direct payments to volunteers which account for most of the cost. Payments to volunteers account for little more than 8 per cent. of the total expenditure. Suggestions of this kind, therefore, could not produce the sort of savings which we require.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: The hon. Gentleman said that the premises and equipment would be retained anyway.
  Mr. Ennals: Yes, but if we provided new equipment and if we were, for instance, to maintain some of the premises which have been established by local authorities for training purposes, the training purposes which are not now to continue, this would be expenditure making up an important part of the cost. The payments to volunteers and bounties account for only about 8½ per cent. of our total expenditure. Therefore, to sacrifice that and maintain the rest of the expenditure at current levels would mean very little saving. It just would not work.
  It is more difficult to decide what should be done about suggestions that individual units or groups of members of both services, the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S., should continue on an informal basis. Some have suggested that they could be self-supporting from members' subscriptions. Practical training costs money; it would be beyond such voluntary resources. They could not from their own resources maintain the sort of expertise required. If practical skills cannot be kept up to date, the volunteers might become a danger to the public as well as to themselves. I am thinking particularly of fire fighting and dealing with dangerous structures.
  Nevertheless, the Government do not want to discourage the volunteer spirit, if some ready and reliable means of retaining voluntary activity, without cost,
  810
  can be found. It will be interesting to see what happens to some of the local ideas and experiments which are being proposed.
  On a number of occasions, auxiliary members of the fire brigades have, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, given valuable help in support of their regular colleagues in peacetime disasters of one sort or other. The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave some examples. Both the Government and the local authorities greatly appreciate that work. But one cannot justify maintaining voluntary bodies organised and trained for service in war for the sole purpose of the incidental benefits which result from their existence in peace.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, no doubt, concerned about the position of some of the local authority staff who have been involved. There are about 2,500 local authority staff at present engaged in civil defence duties in Great Britain—civil defence officers, their deputies, instructors and general supporting staff. Their salaries and administrative expenses form much the largest item in local authority civil defence expenditure. Most of them, I am afraid, will have to leave their posts.
  We fully recognise that local authorities are under heavy pressure to reduce their staffs generally, but we know that they will be as sympathetic as possible about offering alternative employment to as many of their former civil defence employees as they can reasonably absorb. We are taking steps to provide compensation for those who do lose their jobs or suffer a reduction in pay in consequence of the Government's decision.
  It is not the Government's view either that civil defence as a whole is useless or that the particular activities we have suspended were without value. It is rather a question of the level at which we can maintain our activities at the present time, bearing in mind both the financial situation and the risk of war involving an attack upon our territory. We believe that, in all the circumstances, we have struck the right balance for our present situation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Loan (British Motor Corporation and Leyland Motors)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Loan (British Motor Corporation and Leyland Motors)
  Industrial Reorganisation Committee (Chairman's Salary)
  Industrial Reorganisation Committee (Chairman's Salary)
  South-West Economic Planning Council Report
  South-West Economic Planning Council Report
  Price Increases (Notification)
  Price Increases (Notification)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Development Areas (Employment)
  Development Areas (Employment)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International Symposium on Industrial Development
  International Symposium on Industrial Development
  Under-developed Countries (Aid)
  Under-developed Countries (Aid)
POST OFFICE
  Giro Accounts System
  Giro Accounts System
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Haslemere (Trunk Exchange Extension)
  Haslemere (Trunk Exchange Extension)
  Fernhurst Exchange
  Fernhurst Exchange
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Older Children (Maintenance)
  Older Children (Maintenance)
  Older Children (Sunderland)
  Older Children (Sunderland)
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough
  National Reference Library for Science and Invention
  National Reference Library for Science and Invention
  Arts, Museums and Galleries (Grants)
  Arts, Museums and Galleries (Grants)
  Amateur Sport (Development)
  Amateur Sport (Development)
  Proposed Polytechnics
  Proposed Polytechnics
  Middle Schools
  Middle Schools
  Research (Departmental Expenditure)
  Research (Departmental Expenditure)
  Free Library Services (Authors)
  Free Library Services (Authors)
  Comprehensive Schools (Transfer Arrangements)
  Comprehensive Schools (Transfer Arrangements)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Breathalysers
  Breathalysers
  Prison-made Goods
  Prison-made Goods
  Betting and Gaming Act (Enforcement)
  Betting and Gaming Act (Enforcement)
  Magistrates' Courts (Charges)
  Magistrates' Courts (Charges)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Investment Programmes)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Investment Programmes)
  Development Areas (Public Investment)
  Development Areas (Public Investment)
  Companies (Government Shareholdings)
  Companies (Government Shareholdings)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Effluent Disposal (Capital Costs)
  Effluent Disposal (Capital Costs)
  Water Supply Industry Craftsmen (Pay)
  Water Supply Industry Craftsmen (Pay)
TRANSPORT
  Prohibited Vehicles (Metropolitan Police District)
  Prohibited Vehicles (Metropolitan Police District)
  Get-you-home Minibuses
  Get-you-home Minibuses
  Constitution Hill (Accidents)
  Constitution Hill (Accidents)
RAILWAYS
  Southern Region (Timetable)
  Southern Region (Timetable)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Wearside (Industrial Development)
  Wearside (Industrial Development)
  Patent System and Patent Law (Banks Committee)
  Patent System and Patent Law (Banks Committee)
  Hotel Loans Scheme
  Hotel Loans Scheme
  Glasgow and Prestwick Airports
  Glasgow and Prestwick Airports
TECHNOLOGY
  Britten-Norman Islander Aircraft
  Britten-Norman Islander Aircraft
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Shipbuilding Industry
  Roumania (BAC 1–11 Aircraft Purchase)
  Roumania (BAC 1–11 Aircraft Purchase)
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (LOAN FACILITIES)
  UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC (LOAN FACILITIES)
  NASSAU AGREEMENT
  NASSAU AGREEMENT
  BRITISH MISSIONS (COST)
  BRITISH MISSIONS (COST)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Desmond Francis (Deportation)
  Mr. Desmond Francis (Deportation)
  Swaziland Independence Conference
  Swaziland Independence Conference
  British Missions (Costs)
  British Missions (Costs)
  LONDON GREEN BELT
  LONDON GREEN BELT
ALUMINIUM SMELTER
  Financial Arrangements
  Financial Arrangements
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  NEW INDUSTRIES
  NEW INDUSTRIES
  UNITED STATES-OWNED FIRMS
  UNITED STATES-OWNED FIRMS
  EASTER RISING (COURTS MARTIAL)
  EASTER RISING (COURTS MARTIAL)
  DUNTON ENGINEERING AND DESIGN CENTRE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  DUNTON ENGINEERING AND DESIGN CENTRE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cheap Food Policy
  Cheap Food Policy
  Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic (Veterinary Officers)
  Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic (Veterinary Officers)
  Milk Marketing Scheme (Complaint)
  Milk Marketing Scheme (Complaint)
  REMUNERATION OF SOLICITORS (REPORT)
  REMUNERATION OF SOLICITORS (REPORT)
DEFENCE
  Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre, Bahamas
  Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre, Bahamas
  Whirlwind Aircraft Accident (Inquiry Report)
  Whirlwind Aircraft Accident (Inquiry Report)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Intermediate Areas (Capital Investment)
  Intermediate Areas (Capital Investment)
  Departmental Staff (Economists)
  Departmental Staff (Economists)
  Price Increases (Notification)
  Price Increases (Notification)
  Distributors' Margins (Report)
  Distributors' Margins (Report)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Redundancy Payments (Television Contractors Staff)
  Redundancy Payments (Television Contractors Staff)
  Unofficial Strikes
  Unofficial Strikes
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Dungeness B Nuclear Power Station
  Dungeness B Nuclear Power Station
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Supplies)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Supplies)
  Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee
  Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee
  West Burton B Power Station
  West Burton B Power Station
  Fuel Policy (Comparative Costs)
  Fuel Policy (Comparative Costs)
  Pig Iron (British Steel Corporation)
  Pig Iron (British Steel Corporation)
  Merchant Pig Iron (Production)
  Merchant Pig Iron (Production)
  Blast Furnace Plant (Closures)
  Blast Furnace Plant (Closures)
  Pig Iron (Imports)
  Pig Iron (Imports)
  Privately-owned Blast Furnaces
  Privately-owned Blast Furnaces
  Steel Industry (Redundancy Compensation)
  Steel Industry (Redundancy Compensation)
SCOTLAND
  Tenant Farmers (Fixed Equipment)
  Tenant Farmers (Fixed Equipment)
  Clyde Estuary (Development)
  Clyde Estuary (Development)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Report)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Report)
  Rivers (Public Ownership)
  Rivers (Public Ownership)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

VIETNAM: UNITED KINGDOM AID TO CIVILIANS
3.7 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: 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 why they think £250,000 is a sufficient contribution from this country to ease the civilian suffering in South Vietnam.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's primary concern has been to provide immediately effective assistance not only financially but in other ways as well. Our efforts have been warmly welcomed in Vietnam.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply so far as it goes, but it does not really answer my Question, which was: why do the Government think that the sum of £250,000 is a sufficient contribution from this country?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think we have to look at this question both in terms of the need in Vietnam, which is great, and in terms of what we can do to meet that need in the light of our resources. Our view is that skilled manpower, backed up by necessary supplies, is the main requirement, rather than just money, and we think that the most useful form of help will be to increase the deployment and scope of our medical team in Saigon. As the noble Lord will know, qualified personnel, especially doctors, ready to go to Saigon are not easily found, but we are engaged in increasing the size of our medical assistance to Vietnam at the moment.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any other countries besides ourselves and America have made any contribution towards this aid, and, if so, how much?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the answer to that question "off the cuff", so to speak, because it is slightly wide of the original Question, which is about aid given by Her Majesty's Government. But I can find that out, and I will let the noble Earl know.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this £250,000 covers the cost of men and supplies that we are sending, or is it quite separate?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, part of the £250,000 is designed to cover the cost of some supplies and some personnel we are sending. But we really have to look at this problem not only in terms of the need in Vietnam but also in terms of what we can afford to provide.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I have four supplementary questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord on this subject. The first is this. Is he aware that Aid Estimates to South Vietnam from the Ministry of Overseas Development for 1967–68 already run to £367,000, and that the £250,000 will be extra? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that there are many of us who feel that this sum is insufficient? Thirdly, why is there no Government aid to aid civilians suffering in North Vietnam? Fourthly, is it the Government's view that women and children bleed, feel pain and suffer less if they live under a Communist régime?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it would take me a little time to sort out the four questions the noble Lord has asked. I think the first question was one about which I can say I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking it, because it points out that the £250,000 is an extra contribution, in addition to the normal overseas aid. I am aware that a number of noble Lords think that this is insufficient. I can only return to my former answer, which is that we must here reconcile need and resources. So far as the last two questions are concerned, I think that the last question, certainly, was intended to be rhetorical, and I shall

559
treat it as such. Of course we have no such belief, if I understood the noble Lord correctly. Perhaps I had better make it clear: we do not think that people suffer less in this kind of operation because they are under a Communist régime. Of course everybody suffers equally and everybody suffers awfully. Whatever may be the facts about the aid we supply to Vietnam, we should like, as everybody in this House would like, to see this awful war brought to an end as soon as possible.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is there not a great deal more suffering under a Communist régime?
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the three perfectly satisfactory replies he gave and repeat the fourth question—it was in fact the third in the order in which I gave them. Why is there no Government aid to aid civilians suffering in North Vietnam?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the difficulties implicit in this Government's giving aid to the people who are suffering in North Vietnam are obvious enough without my having to elaborate them in your Lordships' House.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the Vietnam Disaster Emergency Committee have managed to get £50,000 to go to the Red Cross organisation of the National Liberation Front and North Vietnam through the Russian Red Cross? It is possible for the Government to do something along those lines?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I must confess that I was not aware of that, and I am grateful for the information, but I prefer not to comment on it any further at this stage.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that suffering knows no frontiers?
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, in view of what
560
he said about the shortage of doctors, is my noble friend aware that if there were more money available there would be many people willing to go there?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely take the point of my noble friend's question. I think that even if there were more money we should still find it difficult to obtain qualified people to go. The fact is that, money or no money, it is difficult to find qualified doctors and nurses who are prepared to go to Saigon. I am delighted to know it, if in fact there are more people who are prepared to go, but so far we have found considerable difficulty.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend.
LORD CHALFONT: I should be most grateful.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, may I return to my original Question for one final supplementary question? Is it not true that our total aid programme now amounts to about £200 million? Would the noble Lord not agree that £250,000 is a very small portion of that? Is there any other country among those we already help which has suffered longer or suffered more than South Vietnam, and in the light of that can he really justify such a small contribution?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the question of overseas aid and programmes for development and other aid is not simply one of suffering. Other factors have to be taken into account, and the question of changing the direction and the emphasis of overseas aid is not one that can be tackled easily and overnight. A great number of factors have to be taken into account. We believe at the moment that the amount we have allotted is relevant to the need and to our resources, but I would add that the Chief Medical Adviser to the Ministry of Overseas Development, Dr. Liston, is coming back from Saigon, I think to-day, and he will be making detailed recommendations to the Minister of Overseas Development.

PROPOSED CONFERENCE ON EUROPEAN SECURITY
3.15 p.m.
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 what action is being taken to implement the terms of the joint communiqué issued at the end of the talks in Moscow between the Prime Minister and Mr. Kosygin endorsing the proposal for a conference on European security to which all the countries of Europe should be invited to send representatives.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in the joint communiqué issued at the end of the Prime Minister's talks in Moscow it was reaffirmed
"that a conference on European security could be valuable subject to the necessary preparation",
and that it was
"important that all the countries of Europe should be among the participants".
We are in touch with our allies about the best way to make further progress.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that Answer, may I ask whether any consultation has taken place with the Soviet Union before this welcome declaration, and particularly whether any consultation has taken place with Western European countries, either through NATO or outside NATO, to press this idea; and in particular, in view of the fact that the Warsaw Pact nations have indicated their support for this proposal and are now meeting in conference, whether Her Majesty's Government will make some declaration which would facilitate this proposal?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we are of course aware that the Warsaw Pact countries are in consultation at the moment. There has not been any further contact with the Soviet Government about bilateral discussions on this proposal. I think the Prime Minister made it clear in his Statement in another place on January 25 that we are not seeking to establish any special position for ourselves
562
in this respect, and that we shall want to discuss this in close consultation with our allies before going back to consult with the Soviet Union. Of course, we are, and we shall be, in touch with our Western allies to see how this proposal can be further developed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, again while thanking the noble Lord for that answer, can he say what specifically has been done on this tremendously important proposal since the decision to communicate with our allies in Western Europe, in view of the fact that the Warsaw Pact Powers have indicated their support for the proposal?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can only say that we have been in close consultation with some of our allies in Europe. I know my noble friend will not ask me to go into detail on what are so far confidential consultations with our allies.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that such a conference would be quite useless without the participation of the United States of America?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think Her Majesty's Government are entirely in sympathy with the noble Lord's question. We continue to regard United States participation from the outset in any such conference as being essential. The United States shares with the Soviet Union, France and Britain special responsibilities for the German question, and Berlin in particular, and in view of that we believe the United States to be vitally involved in the problems of European security.

POSTAL SERVICES WITH EASTERN EUROPE
3.18 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: 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 what discussions have been taking place over the last twelve months with the countries of Eastern Europe—including the Soviet Union—with a view to effecting an improvement in both directions in the postal services.]
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, the countries of Eastern Europe, including the U.S.S.R., are, like this country, members of the Universal Postal Union whose aim is to secure the improvement of the postal services throughout the world and to promote international postal collaboration. Meeting of the councils of the Union, in which this country and some of the countries of Eastern Europe have taken part, have provided a number of opportunities over the last twelve months for multilateral discussions aimed at improving the postal services.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that full explanation, but may I also ask him to represent to his colleague responsible that the postal services between London and the principal cities and countries of Eastern Europe are a great deal slower than the services between, say, London and Athens and the principal cities of the Eastern Mediterranean, where the distances are greater. Since efficient and speedy postal services are important in the interests of trade, quite apart from the personal relations aspect, will he do what he can to see that these services are improved, because there really is room for improvement.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I will certainly convey the noble Lord's question and remarks to the right quarter. My information is that very few complaints have actually reached us on this matter. There have been some complaints, but very few considering the large volume of correspondence involved. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord has said, I will certainly see that this is conveyed to the appropriate quarter.
LORD INLGEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that because these services are used in a very limited way it is not surprising that he has had very few complaints? Will he please look into this again, because a delay of five, six or seven days between London and one of the capitals of the Eastern European countries, which is quite normal for an ordinary letter, is really not acceptable in the 1960s.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that the fault does not necessarily lie on this side.
LORD INGLEWOOD: I did not suggest it does.
LORD SORENSEN: It may be on the other side. Certainly I will see that the noble Lord's observations are conveyed to the appropriate quarter. When I spoke of the small number of complaints, that is comparatitve. It does not matter what the number of complaints is; it is the proportion of those complaints to the total volume of correspondence, and it is important to remember that, compared with what they might be, the number of complaints is relatively small.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that he should concentrate on bringing about an improvement in postal services here at home?
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord can suggest; he may ask, and I understand that is what he is doing. That also I will convey to the right quarter.

FIREARMS AMNESTY AND DISPOSAL OF WEAPONS
3.22 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: 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 what steps they are taking to publicise the latest amnesty for firearms and shot-guns; whether they are aware that among firearms and shot-guns handed in during an amnesty there may be items of some value; and whether they will give instructions to police forces that firearms and shot-guns so surrendered shall first be offered for sale to registered dealers before steps are taken to dispose of them by other means.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the amnesty is being publicised by prominent Government advertisements in the national Press and sporting journals, a distribution of 700,000 leaflets, and announcements on the radio. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made arrangements with the police for the preservation of any antique weapons or other valuable items which can be

565
preserved in national collections. It is not intended that any of the illegally held firearms handed in during the amnesty should be offered to the trade. Shotguns, to which the amnesty does not apply, may be sold privately and to the trade without restriction before May 1. Any shot-guns handed in to the police will be offered to the trade before destruction.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that part of his reply dealing with antique weapons and shot-guns, may I ask why Part I firearms should automatically be destroyed? Is he aware that many are in good working order and would command a good price in export markets? Could not Part I weapons, firearms, be sold to registered dealers on the understanding that they would not be sold on the home market?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agreed that the arrangements for the present amnesty should be similar to those obtaining in 1965. Suggestions made by the trade at that time that amnesty weapons should be available to dealers for export purposes were firmly rejected. The arguments were roughly these: it is inconsistent with the purpose of the amnesty, which is to take firearms out of circulation and not to export them to other countries with the possibility that they might come back. Also, in the earlier amnesty members of the public who had handed in their weapons in good faith complained when they later saw them on sale in this country. Thirdly, I suggest that it would be quite wrong that arms handed in in this country should be handed over to other countries where criminals might get to work in a way we are trying to stop here.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, while applauding the Government's reasons for wishing to take these firearms out of illegal circulation, if they are returned to legitimate circulation why should they be any more likely to fall into the hands of the wrong people than other firearms already held by dealers as part of their stock?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, does not the noble Lord agree that it is a great waste that excellent weapons
566
should be destroyed? Could not these suitably be issued to police forces or other sections of Her Majesty's Forces, or put on sale to responsible people? Is it not a fact that the person who hands in a firearm for which he has no certificate has no reason to feel aggrieved that it should be afterwards displayed for sale, because he has no right to have it in the first place; he is himself a potential criminal, even if gaining the benefit of the amnesty. Is it not a mistake to waste these excellent weapons when there are opportunities for disposing of them to the public advantage?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, without going into the niceties of the Theft Bill, would it not be rather odd to requisition arms for one purpose and then to sell them?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that is exactly what I said a few minutes ago. The whole importance and object of this exercise, the three months or four months amnesty, is that these firearms should be taken out of circulation in this country. Many people who have a firearms certificate obviously are not criminals and could go on holding them. Those who do not have certificates have been asked to hand their firearms in. I think the noble Lord will remember, from the debate we had on Part V of the Criminal Justice Act last year, that quite tremendous figures were shown as to the increase in crime and indictments in the years from 1961 to 1967.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I support my noble friend in the suggestion that instead of destroying these weapons they should be held so that they can be available for the police? There could be no objection to that, and there seems to be a tendency, probably a very wise one, on the part of the Government to arm the police; it may become more and more necessary. Why cannot these guns be held by the Government in case they wish to issue arms to the police?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am quite certain that if my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary felt the police were short of these kinds of firearms he would certainly see that those which were useful to the police would not be destroyed.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me why the height of the possessor of the arms is material as to his eligibity to possess it or not? On my certificate there was a careful inquiry as to my height.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, this has nothing to do with shot-guns at all.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I still cannot understand why these firearms cannot be sold to members of the public who have a firearms certificate.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I do not know how many people with firearms certificates have firearms, but I dare say there is a limit to the firearms covered by one certificate.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No.
LORD BOWLES: Well, it is about time there was.

THE EASTER RECESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be repeating a Statement to be made in another place on Asian immigration. Afterwards I shall be repeating a Statement on the third London Airport.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that subject to the progress of business it is intended that the House should rise for the Easter Recess on Wednesday, April 10 and return on Tuesday, April 23.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
3.30 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is the intention that I should make the opening speech and that my noble friend Lord Shepherd should wind up and reply to
568
points made during the debate. The Transport Holding Company were set up by the Transport Act of 1962 with defined objects including the management of securities in various transport undertakings, both in the passenger and goods fields, which were vested in them by virtue of the Act. In common with the nationalised transport Boards, the Holding Company were given powers to borrow from the Minister, but a statutory limit was set on their borrowing powers. The Act provided that the amount owed by the Company should not be greater than £30 million. Since then the Holding Company have used these powers in pursuit of their business interests. The House will remember that the Company were given a duty to behave as if they were a commercial enterprise, and various acquisitions of securities have been negotiated, notably, perhaps, the acquisition of a 75 per cent. interest in the Tayforth Group of road haulage companies in 1965.
As a result, the limit of these borrowing powers has been approached. Already, £20 million has been lent to the Company and the balance will be needed for normal investment purposes this year. I should remind the House, however, that the Company have carried out their duty to behave as a commercial enterprise to such good effect that they have consistently made profits, and have paid surpluses into the Exchequer annually over and above the interest on their capital.
In the course of the last year the Holding Company have planned a substantial extension of their interests in the field of road passenger transport. A very large independent operator in Yorkshire, the West Riding Automobile Company Limited, was acquired last September, and in November the T.H.C. reached agreement with the British Electric Traction Company Limited for the purchase of the B.E.T.'s shares in bus companies. The price agreed between the two in respect of the ordinary shares was about £35 million, and part of the agreement was an undertaking by the T.H.C. to make similar offers for the minority shareholdings in these companies. It is largely in order to finance the completion of this deal that the increased borrowing powers sought in this Bill are needed.

569
It might assist the House if I were to set out the background to the agreement which has been reached with the British Electric Traction Company Limited. To do this it is necessary to go back to prewar days when, as a direct result of the Railway Road Transport Acts of 1928, the four main-line railway companies acquired substantial shareholdings in most of the large bus companies operating stage and express services in Great Britain. Then, after the war, came the Transport Act of 1947 which established the British Transport Commission. The Commission took over not only the railway companies but also the substantial investments which the railways had in bus companies which by then had formed themselves into three major groups; in England and Wales the Tilling and British Electric Traction Groups and, North of the Border, the Scottish Bus Group.
The British Transport Commission during the first two years of their existence negotiated the purchase of the shares they did not already own in both the Tilling and the Scottish Bus Groups, making the companies wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Commission. Discussions were also held about the possibility of buying the remaining shares in the B.E.T. Group, but at the time these were not brought to a successful conclusion. But the British Transport Commission did hold a substantial number of shares in bus companies in the British Electric Traction Group. Indeed, in the majority of cases their shareholding equalled that of the British Electric Traction Company. These shareholdings passed to the Transport Holding Company when they were set up under the 1962 Act.
The Transport Holding Company therefore had considerable shareholdings in each of the individual companies in the British Electric Traction Group, in some cases as much as 50 per cent. But although the Holding Company invariably nominated directors to the Boards of these companies, effective control of company policy remained with the British Electric Traction nominees. This remains the situation up to the present time. However, your Lordships are aware of the far-reaching changes in the pattern of public transport which the Minister of Transport has proposed. The main points were set out in the White
570
Paper Public Transport and Traffic which was published last December. While details of these changes were being worked out, the Board of the Transport Holding Company came to the view that there would be commercial advantages in acquiring the remaining share in the British Electric Traction Group of companies. They felt that the already large public stake in the bus industry, something over £100 million, could best be safeguarded in the changed circumstances after the reorganisation if they had sole effective control of the bus interests of the Group and were thus able to make the savings from rationalisation which would not otherwise be possible.
The Board of the T.H.C. therefore asked the Minister of Transport whether she would agree to ask Parliament for the increased borrowing powers which they would need to undertake for an acquisition of this size. The Minister authorised the T.H.C. to enter into negotiations with the British Electric Traction Board. In doing so she had in mind both the desirability of completing the process of bringing the main network of bus services into public ownership and also the operational savings which the Transport Holding Company believed to be possible.
I think it is important that the House should be clear on just how these savings will arise. The Transport Holding Company control some 14,000 buses, the British Electric Traction Group another 11,000 buses. It is nowhere contended that it is more economical to control 25,000 rather than 14,000 or 11,000 buses in one operational unit. Indeed, many noble Lords will be aware that it is the opinion of some experts in the field that the optimum size of any bus undertaking is probably not more than 800 to 1,000 vehicles and in some areas perhaps even less. It is alleged that advantages of scale diminish rapidly above this figure. But there is an important difference between the number of buses controlled by a company and the size of the operating units which it chooses to run. Both the Transport Holding Company and the British Electric Traction Group operate through locally based subsidiary bus companies, and it is not intended that this practice should generally be changed. But there are savings to be made where the routes of some companies meet, or even overlap, particularly where

571
it is practicable and operationally sensible to transfer buses and routes from one company to another. The Transport Holding Company, when they control all the main bus companies in England and Wales, will be able to make these adjustments so that anomalies which occur on the borders between bus undertakings' operating areas can be minimised. They will also be able to make other organisational improvements which they consider to be possible as a result of almost doubling the size of the fleet they own.
When the deal is completed over 90 per cent. of the British bus industry, at least in so far as it is concerned with the provision of ordinary stage services, will be in public hands. But it would be wrong to regard this as a major issue of principle. For many years now by far the greater part of the network of bus services in this country has been in public ownership of one sort or another—either municipally owned, or owned by the Transport Holding Company or by the London Transport Board. And in recent years the viable provision of stage bus services has become a more and more difficult proposition. Over the years costs have steadily increased, not least because of increases in wages in what is a highly labour intensive industry, and coupled with this there has been the rapid growth in car ownership and car use. So as costs have mounted year by year the number of potential bus passengers has fallen. It has therefore become increasingly difficult to maintain services and to make profits. Indeed the recent White Paper Public Transport and Traffic said quite clearly that our major bus network could no longer be regarded as a suitable field for private enterprise activity, where the operator's first responsibility is to his shareholders.
Of course, we have not yet reached a position where it is impossible to run bus services which pay. Far from it; most municipal undertakings break even, taking one year with another, and the Transport Holding Company have also aimed successfully at making a small return on capital employed, as have the bus companies in the British Electric Traction Group. But the bus industry is no longer an area in which large profits can be made. I hope, too, that your Lordships will not claim that the Government,
572
in agreeing to this extension of public ownership, will be eliminating competition from the bus industry. There has been no meaningful competition in the bus industry since 1930. In the main, companies have operating rights over particular routes. These rights are given to them by the grant of road service licences by the Traffic Commissioners, and other operators are then not permitted to run buses along those routes in direct competition. But the various routes and services over which companies have virtual monopoly rights were settled many years ago, and in many areas no longer correspond to the most sensible or rational approach to transport problems.
The Traffic Commissioners also control bus fares. This simple fact seems to have escaped some speakers on this subject in another place, where it was suggested that there was an element of trickery, bordering on sharp practice, in that the price to be paid for the British Electric Traction shares was agreed before the Government's plans for various forms of future financial assistance for the bus industry, as set out in the Transport Bill, were published. I am sure that your Lordships are well aware that the object of this Government help is to keep fares down and so help to make public transport more attractive, not to put profits up. So it is unlikely that the bus interests of the British Electric Traction Group would have become more profitable.
In any event, the agreed price of £35 million was a negotiated figure, expressed as £34 million for net assets and £1 million as compensation in respect of special factors arising out of the separation of the bus interests from the remainder of the British Electric Traction undertaking. In the Holding Company's view, this figure represented the underlying value of the B.E.T. interest in the assets taken over. An assessment of current values could not, in the circumstances, have been done by individually valuing the assets concerned. The method adopted was to uplift the book values of the fixed assets in the balance sheets of the various companies concerned in order to reflect the differences between historic cost and current values. Nothing has been included for goodwill. A purchase on assets value was regarded by the Holding Company as being commercially sound,

573
because they considered that, provided the control of fares continued to be exercised in a reasonable way, profits sufficient to remunerate the capital outlay could be earned.
Your Lordships will have noticed that the Holding Company announced last week the prices to be offered to outside shareholders in the bus companies concerned as soon as this Bill is enacted. The amount payable, assuming that all shareholders accept, will be of the order of £10 million, with another £1 million in respect of preference shareholdings, so that in sum total the take-over of the bus interests in the B.E.T. Group will cost the Holding Company about £46 million.
When added to the £30 million borrowings which, as I have explained, will be required to be taken up in full by the Holding Company before the end of 1968, we find the total borrowing comes to £76 million. Why then does this Bill seek to extend the borrowing powers of the T.H.C. to £100 million? The reason is that the Government do not want to put the Holding Company in a financial straitjacket. We consider it prudent to provide in this legislation a sufficient margin to cover all possible borrowing commitments up to the end of 1969, by which date we expect the Holding Company to have been dissolved, as is provided for in the Transport Bill now before another place, consequential upon the formation of the National Freight Corporation, the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group. We have accordingly provided powers to enable the Holding Company to borrow a further £24 million. It does not follow that this money will be used, but it is right that it should be there to enable the Holding Company to take any commercially desirable opportunities for further expansion of public ownership in the transport field over the next two years and also to provide a margin for unforeseen contingencies.
I now turn to the other purpose of the Bill, which is to remove any doubt about the powers of acquisition of securities given to the Holding Company under the 1962 Act. This is thought to be necessary because, although the Transport Holding Company have been making purchases of shares ever since they were established under the 1962 Act—and the Board
574
of the Company have been in no doubt about their power to do so—it has been suggested that there is an ambiguity in the wording of subsection (6) of Section 29 of the 1962 Act. This gives the Company power to subscribe for, exchange and acquire the securities of companies. But the power is limited, in that it may do these things only
"with the object of holding and managing the securities vested in the Company."
The Minister has been advised that there is some element of doubt about the precise construction to be placed on this provision. It is right that any such doubt should be removed.
It is quite clear that there was no doubt in the minds of either the Government or the Opposition of the day when the 1962 Act was passed. Neither this Government, nor the previous Conservative Administration, have ever seen fit to question the Holding Company's interpretation of their powers—and these powers have been exercised under both Governments. But because of the size of the present transactions, and because it is always right that the slightest doubt about the powers of a nationalised board to acquire privately-owned assets should be resolved, the Government have decided to clarify the position. And if it is right to remove the doubt now, it is equally right that we should make it clear that previous transactions of this nature have also been perfectly valid.
Your Lordships may wonder why this Bill has been brought forward ahead of the Transport Bill itself. It is important that the acquisition of the British Electric Traction bus interests should be completed as soon as possible so as to remove the uncertainty which exists at present and so that management can get down to the detailed job of improving the organisation and the services. The acquisition cannot take place until statutory authority for the necessary extra borrowing by the Transport Holding Company has been obtained. If the appropriate provisions had been included in the Transport Bill they would not become law before the late summer at the earliest, and the prolonged period of uncertainty would be damaging to the future prospects of the bus companies concerned. It would also have left the private shareholders in these companies in a prolonged state of suspense. I hope, therefore, that

575
your Lordships will agree that this Bill should pass quickly through this House, so that the freely negotiated commercial contracts which have been entered into subject to its passage can be completed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
3.51 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for his lucid and interesting account of this Bill, and congratulate him on making it sound both simple and innocuous. Indeed, if anything could make this Bill respectable it would be his own agreeable personality, but I am afraid that in fact nothing could make it respectable. It really is a wretched partisan little measure, and noble Lords opposite well know this. The Government are asking us to agree to provide an extra £70 million which will go to the Transport Holding Company, the primary purpose of which is to buy out the holdings of the privately-owned B.E.T. at £35 million and to pay off the minority shareholders at £11 million and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, for giving us that figure. In other words, it is to provide £46 million in order to buy out the privately-owned and privately-controlled section of the bus industry, consisting of some 25 privately-operated companies with 11,000 buses.
As the noble Lord has told us, the Government's objective is to form a national bus company, and this—let us make no bones about it, whatever anybody may call it—is to be a new nationalised industry and is to meet the Minister of Transport's ruling that "public transport is not a suitable field for private profit-making". Well, that is her opinion. I am bound to say that it is not mine. The noble Lord has explained the history and has given us some of the Government's reasoning, and, in particular, has explained how he believes the formation of this national bus company will make for rationalisation of operation and economies in practice. He has not dealt with the question of how the £52 million will be spent, and what effect it will have on national resources, to which I want to refer. Despite the very pleasant manner in which the noble Lord advanced his arguments,
576
they really do not hold water for one minute when they are critically examined, as I intend to examine them.
Before I turn to a critical examination of the arguments, I should like to remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which the Second Reading of the Bill was taken in another place. It will, I think, emphasise the objections which my noble friends and I feel to the Bill. This Bill was taken on January 16 in another place. That was the day on which the Prime Minister announced the drastic cuts which the Government had decided upon to support devaluation—cuts of £325 million in 1968–69 and £441 million in 1969–70. Those are cuts which cut deeply into national policies cherished on both sides; cherished, indeed, with regard to defence and foreign policies abroad and social policies at home. Incidentally, they include cuts of some £94 million in Government spending on motorways and other roads over the next two years.
It is against that sombre background of heavy sacrifice all round that the Government now ask the taxpayer to find an extra £70 million, in order to realise a Socialist dream of creating a national bus company. That is the perspective in which we are being asked to look at this Bill. Let us look again at the Government's claim that the formation of this national bus company will make for rationalisation and economies. The present system of regulating passenger transport services has lasted well; it has lasted over thirty years and, in my opinion, it is an extremely sound, practical system. It has stood the test of time. It consists of a system of traffic engineers appointed by the Minister of Transport, who license bus operators to work on routes applied for. They also approve fare levels, time-tables et cetera. Most valuable, the Traffic Commissioners are the independent tribunal to which private individuals, local authorities, anybody, can make their objections and complaints about the services or the lack of them, and their independent status is a most valuable safeguard to the whole travelling public.
I suggest that their very great powers are both comprehensive and adequate. In practice, this means that they are able to preserve the difficult, loss-making rural bus services by allowing the urban bus

577
operator protection on his profit-making urban routes, on condition that he continues to maintain his loss-making rural routes. In practice, this system, which of course covers both the privately-owned and the publicly-owned bus services, has been very successful in keeping the rural bus services working extremely well on the whole, and has integrated those services to give the travelling public a good service.
I have a great deal of personal experience of this matter, because when I was a Member of another place I had in my constituency the outer part of the London Transport Executive service and that of one of the subsidiaries of the B.E.T. Both of them were good services, but believe me, my Lords, when it came to asking for minor adjustments there was no doubt at all which was the most responsive—the private Southdown service every time. But neither in the noble Lord's speech to-day, nor in the arguments advanced in another place, has there really been an effective critique to show in what respect this system is falling down. It really is working remarkably well, and the obligation is on noble Lords opposite—on the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in winding-up, if he can—to show what is wrong with the existing service that this innovation will improve.
The noble Lord, Lord Hilton, was very frank, and I thought wisely so, in admitting the weight of the arguments that a very large fleet does not necessarily reduce operating costs. I daresay that noble Lords opposite will have read the interesting paper by Mr. Glasborows, the technical research chief of the Transport Holding Company, which he gave to the Public Transport Association last year, in which he analysed the operation and management of bus companies in very great detail. He showed from his research on a number of municipal undertakings that the larger the undertaking became the more expensive was the operation per car mile. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord opposite accepts this.
But I should like to go one stage further than that. Experience has clearly shown with the London Transport Executive that with a gigantic single operation of that kind, publicly-owned, there are massive management difficulties. I would
578
be the first to recognise that, in the London Transport Executive, the structure of transport, the bus services and the Underground rail services are probably the best in the world. But the quality of the management is depressingly weak, and the labour relations are depressingly poor.
There is no doubt at all that, as the years have gone by, the leadership in that Executive has become weaker and weaker. The comment of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, was Chairman at the time, was, "Too little and too late". The general impression was that the Executive had got progressively more and more out of touch with the vast kingdom it was supposed to control; and gradually, of course, the services deteriorated with it. I really fear that this National Bus Company, although it will try to keep the structure of the individual operating companies, will gradually deteriorate into the same condition; that inevitably the authority of the managers of the individual companies will be overridden, and the decisions will be pushed back up to the top, or indeed to the Minister of Transport herself, or himself, in the future, and that it will gradually reach the same state of rigidity as the London Transport Executive has reached.
Inevitably wage costs will rise as the staff demand that all be paid the, level of the highest wage structure. Indeed, this was the attraction implied by the Minister at the last Labour Party Conference, and which went down so well with the trade union delegates in her audience. There is no doubt that the expectation is there, and will materialise just as soon as this happens; and it follows that operating costs and fares will rise. I would say that initiative will wither and waste will grow, just as it has in the case of the London Transport Executive. The elimination of the private sector will mean that no one wilt any longer be dependent on results for a living; and losses will in future be borne by the taxpayer or ratepayer, or both. We have seen all this happen. The stimulating influence of the management will perish—and that is the position of private management; they perish if they fail to show energy and initiative to meet the travelling public's need in rapidly

579
changing circumstances—and will be lost for ever.
Certainly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, that there is no direct competition between private bus services and public bus services, but there is indeed a very strong competition between the private sector bus services and the public bus sector services; and the fact that the private sector is there provides an invaluable competitive spirit running right through the whole bus industry. Now this is to go.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, could the noble Lord help me? Where is this element of competition between the private and the public bus sectors?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, the competition is in the quality of management. If the noble Lord is familiar with the bus industry, he will know very well indeed how keen the competition is between the private sector and the municipal sector in order to give equally good service and get equally good results. It is very strong indeed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord would also agree, would he not, that these companies are operating in different places and in quite different circumstances in terms of traffic congestion and the like? Therefore, there is not this strict comparison or competition which the noble Lord is suggesting.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was not listening to my speech. I acknowledged to start with Lord Hilton's point that there is no direct competition, and I was explaining the competitive spirit that there was. If the noble Lord is not able to recognise the value of that, I must just sympathise with him. I am sure my noble friends on this side recognise it.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred very much to the difficulties of London Transport in its labour relations, into which both he and I conducted an Inquiry. Will he not also make some references to the difficult labour relations that there are
580
with the Midland Red and Northern General, which come under B.E.T., which is now to be dealt with by this Bill? The difficulties in labour relationships are not just one-sided. I know the noble Lord wants to be fair, and I sincerely hope he will be, so I suppose he will be referring to the difficult labour relations in the case of these particular companies, too.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, this is an industry, as all of us who are familiar with it know, where the labour relations are difficult, but I think I should be safe in saying that the labour relations in the case of the London Transport Executive are the worst.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Oh, no!
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: If I may continue with my speech, I should like to make the point that in our recent debate on the problems of running nationalised industries noble Lords on all sides discussed—and I think a large measure of agreement was shown—the massive and the largely unsolved problems of management in the nationalised industries, and we all had various suggestions to make as to how they might be overcome. It really seems to me to be lunacy to-day to create another of these massive problems in a particularly difficult and fast-changing industry, in which, as noble Lords have rightly said, labour relations are particularly difficult. I would hazard this opinion to noble Lords. There is probably no advanced country to-day which has the problems of the universal motor car and modern traffic conditions which would not welcome a private operator, with private capital and 70 years' of experience of running bus services, coming in to operate a wide range of public bus services for them. Yet here is this Government extinguishing the last major private operator in this country. To my mind, this is a most regrettable step.
I should now like to deal with an argument which was expanded at length in another place, but which I think deserves to be dealt with here. That is the effect of this extra £70 million, which we are being asked to approve, on our finances as a whole. This is going to make an immediate demand for £46 million to be spent. This £70 million—let us have no

581
doubt about this—will be provided from the Consolidated Fund, and therefore either the taxpayer will pay it direct (it will presumably appear as an additional "below the line" item in the Budget) or the Government will have to resort to the printing press, with a deficit. One way or the other, the public are going to pay.
The point I want to deal with is this. How is this immediate expenditure of £46 million to be reconciled with the Government's pronounced policy of drastic economy of public expenditure? When this £46 million is paid out to the E.E.T. and the minority shareholders, they are not going to put it into the bank and forget it; nor are they going to lend it to the Government. That is very unlikely. They will either reinvest it directly by developing new businesses themselves, in which case they will spend large sums of money on new plant and equipment and labour—and much of the new equipment, of course, will be imported—or they will make takeover bids for existing businesses or industries in order to reinvest and rebuild their structure. If they make takeover bids and buy other businesses, in each case the vendor will receive the cash, which he will either reinvest or spend on capital goods, or some of it will come out in cash, and so on. However this finally works out, an extra £46 million will have gone into circulation, and will sooner or later be exerting its demand on national resources, capital goods, consumer goods and labour. There can be no doubt, my Lords, that this Bill is in direct and outright conflict with the Government's declared policy of drastically cutting back public expenditure, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who I see making some notes, will deal with this very important point.
I would remind noble Lords that in another place the Government were given a chance to redeem the financial horror of this Bill. A Conservative Amendment was moved in another place to instruct the Transport Holding Company to sell off the Thomas Cook Travel Agency, with a capital value of probably £20 million to £30 million. That would have paid the greater part of the purchase money required for B.E.T., and would have done so without making any further demands on the national economy at this time. That would have been
582
genuine. So far as I know—and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will tell me if I am wrong—there is no doctrinaire Socialist commitment to nationalise travel agencies. Everybody knows that Thomas Cook came into Government hands entirely fortuitously, as a war-time accident. The shareholding fell into the hands of the enemy, and, after the war, this naturally fell into the hands of the Government. So the ownership of Thomas Cook is really quite unrelated to any broad nationalisation plan that the Government can claim to have. This reasonable proposition of raising the money was put to the Government, but they turned it down on the ground that what they have they hold.
I must say to my noble friends on the Conservative Benches that I very much regret that I must advise them that we should not divide against this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, indicated, it must be regarded as part of the Government's transport policy for which they can claim an electoral mandate. But I must also say this to the Government. Nobody outside Parliament or inside Parliament who takes an intelligent interest in this Bill is persuaded for a minute either that it is not in flagrant conflict with the declared policy of stringent economy or that it will not weaken the general tone of management in the passenger transport business. It clearly has no other motive than the nationalisation of the bus industry. On its merits it certainly should not go on the Statute Book; certainly not now, when the need is for a broad rational policy that will unite all sections of the nation. I say this to noble Lords opposite in all sincerity; the short-term gain of Party satisfaction will be heavily paid for at the price of long-term Party reputation if they proceed with it. I strongly urge the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to advise his Ministerial colleagues to withdraw this Bill.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION: AMENDING LEGISLATION
4.12 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the

583
Secretary of State for the Home Department has just been making in another place about Commonwealth immigration. The statement is as follows:
"The Government have watched with great concern the rapid departure from East Africa of holders of United Kingdom passports, and their arrival in this country. As the House knows, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has recently visited Kenya where he has had full discussions about this problem with President Kenyatta and the Kenyan authorities. The Government have also been closely in touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan. During the last three months over 7,000 immigrants have arrived from East Africa, which is more than for the whole of 1966. The signs are that if no action were taken the flow would increase at an even faster rate. This sudden arrival of large numbers of people is placing a serious strain upon the services of those areas where they decide to settle. Whilst the Government is extremely reluctant to interfere with the arrival of persons holding United Kingdom passports, nevertheless it is necessary for the inflow to be brought under control.
"A Bill will be presented tomorrow bringing under immigration control citizens of the United Kingdom holding United Kingdom passports who have no substantial connection with this country, for example, by birth or paternal parentage. This legislation will not only apply a control to the present rush of immigrants from East Africa; it will also extend to persons in other parts of the world who have hitherto been similarly exempt from United Kingdom immigration control.
"There will be a special allocation of 1,500 vouchers a year for such persons. Voucher holders will of course be entitled to be accompanied or joined later by their dependants. In this way it will be more possible for immigrants from East Africa to arrive here at a rate at which they can be absorbed into the community. The effect will be that those wishing to come will have to wait their turn.
"The Government have also reviewed the existing scheme of employment vouchers and my right honourable
584
friend, the Minister of Labour, will be announcing changes that are being introduced. These will be designed to reduce the present long waiting lists, to adapt the scheme more closely to this country's economic and social needs, and to see that as far as possible immigrants with special qualifications do not find themselves unable to secure jobs appropriate for those qualifications.
"The Bill will also contain provisions for dealing with the problem of clandestine immigration by Commonwealth citizens. It will make clandestine entry an offence, and there will be provision for substantial penalties for those convicted of smuggling in immigrants unlawfully. The period of 24 hours after landing within which an immigrant can be required to submit to examination by an immigration officer will be extended to 28 days.
"The Bill will curtail the right of dependent children, up to the age of 16, to join a single parent in this country. The original provision was intended to ensure the unity of the family but the Government has been concerned by the great increase in arrivals of children at or about school-leaving age, seeking work and often coming to live in an all-male household. The existing right of dependent children to join both parents in this country remains unaltered. Next week I shall lay before the House as a White Paper a draft of instructions to immigration officers setting out how they are to exercise discretion to admit children to join a single parent. It will also include instructions that they are not in future to admit dependent fathers below the age of 65. The present minimum age for admission is 60. Enforcement has been difficult, and some men enter at younger ages in order to take employment here.
"Finally, the legislation will give power to require that dependants can be asked to undergo medical examination at the ports of entry, and subsequently to report to the medical officer of health for treatment.
"The Government are satisfied that these measures are necessary in fairness to the people of this country and in the interests of equitable treatment for the citizens of the Commonwealth

585
as a whole. The Government's purpose is to create a climate in which good community relations in this country can be fostered."
That concludes the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary; but it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships of the proposed programme for the Immigration Bill next week. Your Lordships will, I am sure, appreciate the great urgency of this Bill. It is anticipated that we shall receive the Bill on Wednesday evening from another place and we then propose to ask the House to suspend Standing Order No. 41, and, if the House agrees, we hope to take the Bill through its remaining stages—if necessary through all its stages, depending on the hour that the Bill reaches us—on Thursday, February 29.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement made by the Home Secretary in another place? Is he aware that there will be a widespread welcome for the decision of the Government to take emergency action to deal with the difficult situation that has been occasioned by the Kenya Government embarking on a policy which can only be described as racial discrimination? Is he also aware that the further proposals for amending the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 are largely taken from the speeches of my noble friend Lord Derwent and myself in the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in this House three months ago, though they fall far short of the thorough-going review of the future population composition of this country which some of us have been pressing on the Government for some time as being absolutely necessary? I feel sure that on behalf of my noble friends I can say that the Opposition appreciate to the full the urgency of this Bill, while reserving our right to examine it in detail, because this is going to be an important measure. Can the Leader of the House say whether a further statement promised by the Minister of Labour, which may be of a detailed character, will be available to your Lordships' House fairly soon?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for making that Statement in your Lordships' House, may
586
I say that we on these Benches regard it as a disturbing one? We realise that something has to be done, and we realise the reasons why it has to be done with such urgency, but we shall want to study the details of the Bill particularly to see that there is proper provision made for such things as appeal procedures. In view of the pledges which were given by the former Colonial Secretary in a previous Conservative Government in, I think, 1963, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will do their utmost to involve other countries—it is welcome to know that India and Kenya are involved—so as to ensure that no Kenyan Asians or others covered by this Statement face the prospect in the future of being stateless persons? This would be something for which we could not take responsibility in this country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may reply now to the two noble Lords who have spoken, may I first thank them both for their remarks. I am in substantial agreement with what they have said, although I should not like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to think that he and his noble friend Lord Derwent have a monopoly of wisdom in these matters. Certain of the developments and tendencies have been apparent to many of us. It is a very difficult situation, and I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this is a disturbing Statement. But it is one that the Government have felt compelled to make, and I am sure that most of your Lordships would feel that it was compulsion rather than desire which has driven us to adopt a measure of this kind.
My Lords, there will be an opportunity to examine the clauses as soon as the Bill is tabled. I do not think we shall find that they are too complicated, but of course we must look at them. I recognise the noble Lord's concern in this matter. Obviously with every day that goes by the situation becomes more serious, and that is why we wish to treat the matter with urgency. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked me about the statement by the Minister of Labour. I am sorry that I cannot say when it will be made, but I will inquire and let him know personally in relation to the discussions on this Bill.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while reserving any further comments until the Bill is introduced, may I ask my noble friend these questions? First, is it not a fact that when independence was given to Kenya in 1963 the pledge was given to Asians who did not accept Kenyan citizenship that they would be permitted to come to this country under a United Kingdom passport? Secondly, is it not also the case that the Indian Government, of which Pandit Nehru was then the Prime Minister, supported by Mrs. Indira Ghandi, now the Prime Minister—and incidentally by myself—urged the Indian community to take Kenyan citizenship? Thirdly, is it not the fact that the great pressure now resulting from Asians coming from Kenya is due to the panic warnings given by Mr. Duncan Sandys and other colleagues about the probability of legislation being introduced? Finally, while the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was defended on the grounds that it was non-racialist, because it referred to all Commonwealth immigrants, are not these proposals entirely racialist, entirely based on colour, because they are applied only to Asians and those of colour, and not to white people?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will do my best to answer my noble friend Lord Brockway, who clearly has been more deeply concerned and more involved in these affairs than I have. Certainly it is true that British nationality was allowed to those who did not take Kenyan nationality. I think I ought to make clear—and I should have made this clear earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Byers—that there is no question of losing their nationality. This is the basic dilemma that confronts us, and why it is so vital that we get the right sort of machinery. What is proposed is that a queue shall be established which we hope will be more orderly and provide a more orderly situation than exists at the moment. I would rather not comment on the actions of Mr. Duncan Sandys in this area. I suspect that they are a good deal more embarrassing to the other side than to this side of your Lordships' House; and in a matter in which we wish to co-operate sensibly I would rather not pursue that more fully.
I must at once say to my noble friend Lord Brockway that this is not racialist, and it is unfortunate to attach that term
588
to this measure. The essence of this measure relates to those who are sometimes called "United Kingdom belongers". Those who belong to the country and have their associations with it are naturally those we should expect to come here. These particular citizens in Kenya are not U.K. belongers and never have been. I must make clear that this Bill and its provisions will apply to all U.K. citizens, wherever they may be, within the terms of the Bill as it is produced. The fact that they will apply mainly to those who are of a different colour is because it will apply to those who have not been belongers to the United Kingdom. I assure the noble Lord that the Bill is not drawn in racialist terms as he suggested.
My Lords, the important point is that we are determined, and indeed it is vital, that this country shall make a success of its race relations. It is a highly delicate and difficult area. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes soon to extend the provisions of the Race Relations Act. We must be realistic in this matter. I cannot imagine a more difficult decision that the Government have had to take than this one, and I ask noble Lords to consider the consequences of the rush to this country and our ability to absorb it. It is not merely the happiness of white citizens of the United Kingdom that is at stake; it is the happiness of our fellow citizens who are themselves Asian or coloured.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, arising from what the Leader of the House has just said, and while viewing with a certain amount of sadness the Statement he has made, may I ask my noble friend and the Government, particularly when they are dealing with the abuses that arise from dependants, or so-called dependants, coming to this country, that they will allow proper and real dependants, the real children of immigrants who are here, to enter this country? It seems to me that that is the basis of healthy integration which is necessary for the immigrants who are already here.
LORD SHACKLETON: I entirely agree with my noble friend. In fact the ratio at the moment is that for every one voucher holder there are something like three dependants. The purpose has

589
always been to avoid the splitting of families. A certain amount of deliberate family splitting is going on already, but there is certainly no intention to change the general policy. My noble friend will see, when she looks at the Bill and we explain how it operates, that her sentiments are fully taken into account.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the restriction applies to citizens of the Republic of Ireland?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have common citizenship with the Republic of Ireland and that puts us in a different situation, but I am embarking on a field with which I am not so familiar as my noble friend Lord Stonham is, so I had better be careful. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has the answer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating sincerely the difficulties which Commonwealth immigrants cause in this country, particularly in the spheres of education and housing, may I ask whether the Government will take into consideration that the Asian children who come from Kenya have English as their mother tongue and would not cause difficulties in education, and that they are living according to European standards and so will not cause the difficulties which have arisen in housing and in other respects?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it seems to me that my noble friend is approaching this problem from a class basis. I hope he will not take this too much to heart, but he made a case on particular grounds. It does not significantly alter the problem. I appreciate that many of these Asians are English-speaking and that quite a lot have skills we would wish to have here. It is simply a matter of the rate at which this country can absorb them without danger to our own national multiracial unity within this country.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in view of the great amount of business before the House this afternoon, would it not be better, whatever our views, to await the Bill?
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, may I ask for one clarification
590
from the noble Lord the Leader of the House? Did I understand correctly that white Kenya citizens holding British passports are to take their place in what he called "the queue" with others?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it entirely depends on whether they fall within the definition of United Kingdom belongers, which is not, I may say, a phrase which appears in the Bill. They may or may not fall within the category of the Bill, but it is intended to apply to all, regardless of colour, and if the noble Baroness will await the Bill, she will have an opportunity to pursue that point.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I am not familiar with the term "United Kingdom belongers" and I shall be grateful, if not now then later, to have a more precise definition of it.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the position of these Asians coming from Kenya is rather special, both on account of their British passports and on account of the fact that they are being driven out of their own land and will not have anywhere to lay their heads? Has it occurred to Her Majesty's Government that it might be possible temporarily to reduce the flow from other sources where the need is not so urgent?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I very much take my noble friend's point. They are in a special category, because they are United Kingdom citizens. This is what makes this particular problem so much more painful May I say to my noble friend that the Government have wrestled with this problem in every sort of way, including the way in which he is looking at it, but it has been decided—this is the present view of Her Majesty's Government—that it would be undesirable to reduce the number of vouchers that are at present available to Commonwealth citizens. I do apologise to the noble Baroness for the word "belonger", but I think it is one of those ugly words whose meaning, however, is quite self-evident.
BARONESS ASQUITH OF YARNBURY: My Lords, I regret that it is not so. I never heard it before and I dislike it. I should welcome a definition. I think that in a proposed Bill of Parliament we

591
are justified in asking for an accurate definition of a term which is going to determine the destiny of thousands of people to whom we have an obligation.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that my noble friends and I are wholeheartedly behind the Government in their desire declared in this Statement to create a climate in which good community relations in this country can be fostered? May I venture to suggest that our next step should be to examine together the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and how it can best be amended to achieve this end?

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: SITING INQUIRY
4.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place on the Government's proposals for a third London Airport. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House knows, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has consulted local authorities and other bodies about a realignment of the runways of Stansted, and we have now studied all the replies. These raise certain new considerations. Although realignment would greatly reduce the number of people seriously affected by noise, it would affect many people who had neither the occasion nor the opportunity to object at the original inquiry. Moreover, those consulted have argued that the traditional land requirement and provision for expansion to a four runway airport amount to such a radical departure from the earlier proposals as to constitute virtually a new project.
"In the light of these considerations, and the continued public concern about the Stansted decision, and the general welcome given to the proposals in the Town and Country Planning Bill for dealing with cases of this type, the Government have decided to refer to an Inquiry, which will take place in public, the question of the siting of the
592
third London airport. This will be a far wider Inquiry than that proposed in the Report by the Council on Tribunals. It might take the form of a Planning Inquiry Commission, duly constituted after the Bill has become law, or some other form. We would wish to discuss the exact form of the Inquiry with the Opposition, bearing in mind the need to proceed with all reasonable speed. Meanwhile we shall not proceed with the Special Development Order for Stansted.
"I hope the House generally will welcome the Government's readiness to attend in this way to both local opinion and public opinion generally."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this important Statement. I am even more grateful, as I am sure are many of your Lordships and many people outside Parliament, for the terms of the Statement itself, and I should like to congratulate the Government on their complete, if somewhat belated conversion. This is an illustration of the fact that even very stupid Governments are sometimes capable of doing quite sensible things. It is also a vindication of the usefulness of your Lordships' House and of the view expressed in our debate two months ago, I think almost unanimously, that the Government should constitute a new and really wide-ranging Inquiry into this matter. That debate was in no wise a Party political one, and rightly so, since this is not a Party political matter. That being so, I think that we all welcome what is said in the Statement about consultation as regards the form of this new Inquiry, and I think, too, that we should wish to endorse the need to proceed in this matter with all reasonable speed.
Could I put this one question to the noble Lord? Am I right in assuming from the terms of the Statement that the Inquiry will be empowered to inquire into the pros and cons of sites alternative to Stansted? Again, I should like to congratulate the Government on their complete capitulation in this matter.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Earl, I agree with him absolutely about this not being a Party matter though I am bound to say that I find it difficult to reconcile that view

593
with his use of the word "stupid". As for the question he asks, I am glad to confirm that the proposed Inquiry will be able to range over a much wider field than the question of Stansted. It will be open to discuss all matters, including timing, access and costs.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I would not dream of criticising the Government for changing their minds on the rare occasions when they change them in the right direction, but following on what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, may I ask whether the terms of reference are still wide enough? The reference is still to a third London Airport. Should it not be wide enough to examine a third international airport for the United Kingdom? And may I ask whether the Government will give an undertaking at some time that they will accept the findings of the Inquiry?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as to the terms of reference, I am sorry that the noble Lord is disagreeing with them, because they have not yet been decided.
LORD BYERS: Perhaps I may correct that. The noble Lord has referred in the Statement to the third London Airport. My point is that we ought to be looking for a new international airport for the United Kingdom. It may not be London.
LORD BESWICK: I still say that the terms of reference have not yet been decided and they will be a matter of consultation with others. Although we are considering here a third London Airport, I do not believe there has been any real objection to the definition of the problem. There no doubt will eventually be the need—and I think the White Paper referred to it—for another United Kingdom airport, but there is also no doubt that a third London Airport is needed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while welcoming the Statement made by the Government, I should like to do something that I do not think I have ever done before, and that is to congratulate the Government on their decision. May I ask the noble Lord to make two things clear? First of all, the form of the Inquiry is of great importance. I welcome the fact that there will be discussion with the Opposition about it,
594
but could the noble Lord say that there will be some discussion with those who have taken such an active part heretofore in relation to this matter—for instance, the county councils involved—because the more agreement that can be obtained now as to the form of the Inquiry and the terms of reference, the better. Will the noble Lord say that the terms of reference will be discussed with the Opposition and with others affected? If I may, I should like to join in the hope that now that this decision has been taken the matter will be got on with without any unnecessary delay.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and the spirit in which he has said it. I am sure—and I have always accepted this—that the criticisms that he has made have been made in the best spirit and in order to establish the truth; and that has also been my approach to this matter. As to the scope of the consultations, I cannot of course commit the Government to consult with every local authority. I am not certain how we define "opposition" in this context, but I agree with the noble Viscount that, having decided to establish the Inquiry, it is absolutely essential to ensure that it commands public confidence. I will see that what he has said about consulting others is considered.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, as Chairman of the Council on Tribunals, I welcome the Statement, and should like to ask this supplementary question. Will this Inquiry be a statutory one?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend has imported this question of the Council on Tribunals. I should like to make it clear, as she has mentioned her position on that Council, that this decision, which we have now taken, is in no way connected with the Report of the Council on Tribunals. So far as her question is concerned, the authority of the Inquiry will, of course, depend upon its form, and that has yet to be decided and will not be decided until after the consultations that I have mentioned.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, will the scope of the Inquiry include the urgency of the needs of B.E.A.? That is

595
a matter which was thought to be very relevant at an earlier stage.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree that this question of the time-scale is vitally important, and nothing that has arisen in any way suggests that the Government have been wrong in laying down the time-scale which was talked about earlier. All I can say now is that the Inquiry will be conducted with all possible speed consistent with ensuring public confidence.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, with respect, this is not the point. Will my noble friend say whether the scope of the Inquiry will include the urgency of the needs of B.E.A.?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think I said in answer to an earlier supplementary that the scope of the Inquiry will consider all matters, including timing, cost, siting and access.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those who have been in on this from the beginning, and who have pressed for a further Inquiry, are very much gratified by the Government's decision?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord has said will be music to the ears of many.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I say that there will be great joy in Heaven over this decision? My noble friend has said that the Opposition will be consulted; and he has also said that this is not a Party political matter. Noble Lords on this side of the Chamber have also been opposed to this scheme. Would he also consult with some of us on this side about the terms of reference, as we are equally concerned?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we have to be sensible about this. Without making any commitment about formal consultation, I am sure it will be possible to hear as well the points of view of experts like the noble Lord. May I also express satisfaction that there will be joy not only in Saffron Walden, but in Heaven?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble
596
friend and the Government on the decision at which they have arrived. I say that as one who addressed your Lordships at great length when we debated Stansted earlier. Just as my noble friend Lord Silkin says there will be great joy in Heaven, there will also he great joy in Essex which, but for this decision, would have been the other place.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I also say how welcome the Government's decision is? But I should like to ask the noble Lord, when he is considering the terms of reference, to look further at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Of course, the interests of London are important, but calling the thing in advance the third London Airport may appear to many people to beg some of the most vital questions. It has led many who are taking part in the controversy to say that it must automatically be within a certain distance of London and arbitrarily to exclude other points. Would it not be better to ask where our next great international airport should he situated? That is the thing to be investigated, and a great many questions are begged if you call it the third London Airport.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that what has been said by the noble Lord who has gone, and by the noble Lord who remains, will be considered, though I must say that a good deal has already been said and written about this problem. There is a need for consideration of a new United Kingdom airport, but no one so far has doubted that there is a need for a third London Airport, and that is what we are now considering.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, as I led the debate in this House on this subject, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Government on their decision, which I think is a real act of statesmanship.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I must again just take the time of the House to say how appreciative I am, and I am sure the Government as a whole will be, at the spirit that has been shown. I hope that what has been said here this afternoon will be a happy augury for the success of the proposed Inquiry.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
4.50 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I am well accustomed to waiting for the bus, and if it is not too trivial a matter for your Lordships to return to, I should like to say a word or two about certain aspects of this Bill. I would not dispute the force or importance of many of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made. But I think there are answers to many of them, and for my part, looking at the matter historically, as I feel bound to do, I feel that the acquisition of the principal remaining private interest in public passenger transport by the already nationalised group, which it is one of the main objects of this Bill to finance, is a logical and, in this direction, almost a culminating step in a long process.
Your Lordships will, of course, have an opportunity of considering the whole question of public passenger transport when the Transport Bill reaches this House. I confess I am not very clear as to what the future of that transport is intended to be. If a huge national bus company is now created, will it again be split up under the various area schemes into a number of component parts? Much of that is not very clear to me. But I should have thought that the difficulties could be avoided if the organisation in the immediate future is kept sufficiently loose.
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to explain why I regard this Bill as a natural development. Thirty years ago many transport men and many managers of transport undertakings, both private and municipal, were themselves agreed that the time was ripe over wide areas for merging some of the local tramway and bus undertakings in larger bodies. It would have been in the interests of economy and of efficiency, and it would have contributed to the convenience of the travelling public to do so. But the most formidable lion in the path, or at least the lion with the loudest roar, was the acute jealousy which prevailed among adjacent local authorities, and, apart from London, nothing in fact was done.
598
The Transport Act 1946 provided a machinery whereby areas could be specified and schemes submitted by the British Transport Commission, with a view to establishing new authorities in which undertakings in the hands of municipalities and of the private interests would he merged. Why then did no such schemes come into being? The Minister himself had power to specify areas and to require submission of schemes to him, though I do not recall that he ever made such a request to the Commission. The Commission itself made some moves towards the preparation and submission of such area schemes, particularly in the area of the North-East coast, which looked promising. But the procedures were elaborate; opposition was likely to be strong, and there was always, of course, the possibility that rationalisation of local government boundaries would soon go some way towards rationalising local transport.
We came, however, to the conclusion—and I certainly came to this conclusion—rightly or wrongly, as time went on, that the then Minister, to whom the schemes had to be submitted, and the Government to which he belonged, let alone their successors, would not in the last resort be prepared to coerce important municipalities or to face the Special Orders Procedure in Parliament to which their own orders would have been subject. Whether this was an error of judgment I do not know, and if it was I cannot, as Chairman of the Commission, disclaim my share of responsibility for it, and for not pressing matters to an issue. But it would be a mistake to think that the British Transport Commission did nothing in this field; and this is where our action is closely relevant to the present Bill.
In the review of public passenger transport which they were required to make, the British Transport Commission in their very early days thought it would be a sound initial approach to the problem of reorganisation if they could acquire the whole interest in those privately-owned groups which were willing to negotiate with them and in which they already had a 50 per cent. interest inherited from the railway companies. We quickly came to terms with the Tilling organisation and with Scottish Motor Transport, and had the backing of the Government

599
of the day in issuing the transport stock required for this purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Hilton, said that we had discussions with the British Electric Traction Company. I do not recall that we had any prolonged or serious discussions because, as I said just now, I was anxious to proceed as far as possible by agreement. But it is quite true that at a later stage I did have talks with Mr. Hartley Drayton about a closer association between his undertaking and our own. They were confidential, and I can say nothing more about them. But we took over these two very large groups, Tilling's, which represented most parts of England, and Scottish Motor Transport, which had almost a monopoly in Scotland.
The management of these new interests presented no difficulty. We left management to the local concerns, subject only to the use of common services and such general direction as their previous owners had insisted upon. In effect, the Commission acted as a holding company. We did not try to centralise, and had no wish to do so, and I should have thought that that is part of the answer to the very forcible criticisms Lord Nugent made as to what may happen if the process of taking over the private interests in which the nationalised undertaking already had a 50 per cent. share was completed. I feel myself that those difficulties could be avoided.
But, of course, I cannot dispute the risk that, once an undertaking is nationalised, labour pressures may be increased. It has been said, in answer to that point: what about Midland Red?—that it is not altogether one way. That argument Lord Nugent has pressed. But I think the experience of the last twenty years has shown that a public passenger transport undertaking can be efficiently managed in public hands, can earn satisfactory revenues, and I see no reason myself why that should not be true if the present acquisition is sanctioned financially by Parliament. I said we did not come to terms with the B.E.T., but, for my own part, and speaking for myself—I cannot claim to recall the views of my colleagues at this stage—I did not, and I do not, consider that we were in any way failing in our duty because we did not, or could not, immediately gobble up B.E.T. as
600
well as the other two great private interests.
I knew from my own past official experience and from my own use of their services as a citizen that the B.E.T. companies, like Southdown and Midland Red, were extremely efficiently managed. They were by no means devoid of a proper sense of duty to the public, and they were ultimately under the control of the Traffic Commissioners. I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in what he said about the efficiency of that type of administration and control through the Traffic Commissioners. I had a great deal to do with the choice of the original team and I followed their work for a great many years with the closest interest.
On top of all that, speaking of B.E.T., as a 50 per cent. shareholder we could feel satisfied with the return which we received from our investment, and perhaps, again speaking for myself, I thought there might be something to be said for running these two systems of complete ownership and 50 per cent. ownership side by side for a little longer. So, to cut a long story short, we left well alone. But now circumstances have changed. Some of the gilt may be off the gingerbread, and indeed some of the subsidiary undertakings apparently have difficulty in running their rural services any longer at a profit. It is my view, although many of your Lordships will disagree with me, that if they have to be given public money they should, together with their more profitable activities, be in public hands.
I assume, of course, that the price now being paid for B.E.T. is just and fair to both sides; that the Government are satisfied that they are not paying too much and that the company is being fairly treated. In these matters there is always the possibility mat the Government may pay one lot of interests on the profits of the past and another lot of interests on the prospects for the future, with the result that the capitalisation of the Government organisation tends to get overloaded. But here there must have been close bargaining. I think the Government must be assumed to have safeguarded their own interests, and, so far as the company is concerned, surely

601
the answer to any doubts on that score is that they have agreed and accepted the terms.
I hope I have not dwelt too long upon the past, but I submit that, so far as a large part of the financial provisions contained in this Bill is concerned, they represent a logical development in the evolution of the organisation of public passenger transport in this country. There is nothing revolutionary about the proposal. It is not even a 100 per cent. proposal; it is taking only the remaining 50 per cent. of what the nationalised undertaking already has, and in that respect I think there is no alternative but to accept these terms as just carrying further the action taken by the British Transport Commission twenty years ago.
Now, as we know, the Minister has far more ambitious plans. If she gets the authority to proceed with them which she is now seeking from Parliament in another Bill, she will wisely have cleared her path, when she comes to face the municipal lions, by having led captive already the only large remaining non-municipal member of her menagerie. I feel inclined to wish her luck when she comes to face the construction of these future schemes, which, as I said, are really only carrying on a process which many people thought should have been begun thirty years ago and which were carried a considerable way twenty years ago but which have since marked time.
5.37 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, this is a very small Bill with two clauses, but I suggest it has very great and grave implications. Before referring to these matters perhaps I should disclose that I have an interest, as I am a director of one of the British Electric Traction Companies—Southdown Motor Services Limited—which is, if I may say so, one of the best and most efficient bus companies in the country. Fifty per cent. of it is owned by British Rail, and we get on very well indeed.
This Bill is closely linked with the Transport Bill which is now in Committee stage in another place and which sets out the establishment of a national bus company, to which the assets and liabilities of the Transport Holding Company will be transferred. Under Clause 50 of the Transport Bill, the Transport
602
Holding Company is going to be dissolved. Therefore we are being asked by the Bill which is before the House to-day to increase the borrowing powers of a company which is already in a shadowy condition. I think it is astonishing that at a time when Her Majesty's Government are pleading for financial restraint in all quarters of the public and private sector they should bring before the House a measure to spend a further £70 million of public money. Some £46 million of this money is to be paid out to shareholders, which will undoubtedly increase inflation in the country.
Does the Minister in charge of the Bill really think, for example, that it is a good thing to cut the road building programme in order to nationalise buses and coaches? The investment of the British Transport Commission, and later the Railway Board, in the British Electric Traction Group of buses has worked well for over twenty years. Why do Her Majesty's Government want to change it? I am afraid I cannot accept that this change is merely a culminating step, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. It is much more than that, and I would say that the whole conception of the Bill is hostility to private enterprise, and not to increase efficiency.
I suggest it is no argument to say that as 80 per cent. of the bus services are now run by public organisations it would be much better and more efficient to have all of them under public ownership. What we on this side of the House should like to know from the Minister is why he thinks they will run better, more efficiently or more cheaply than by private enterprise? Is there any justification for assuming that public ownership has provided a better bus service? I suggest that Her Majesty's Government so far have failed to provide this evidence. In fact, the right honourable lady, the Minister of Transport, in her White Paper, used these words:
"The main network of public transport is no longer an appropriate activity for private companies ".
What an extraordinary statement to make! And on what is it based? I can see no justification at all for that statement, and I do not think it has ever been proved. Now we are going to have a national bus company which will have

603
no private enterprise against it to keep it on its toes. The Minister of State in another place said:
"The great advantage is that there will be economies. We will be joining bus companies together and getting a better yield ".
Her Majesty's Government must be aware that the head of economic research at the Transport Holding Company, the Company which is to purchase the British Electric Traction shares with this borrowed money, has made it quite clear publicly that he does not agree with the statement in the White Paper which reads:
"In many of these areas the efficiency of bus operation is hampered by the small size of the undertakings."
The head of economic research has stated that:
"If efficiency is to be measured by costs, there is no evidence that larger undertakings reduce costs."
I would ask: How blind can a Government become not to examine more closely the experience and statements of their own specialised people? Have they neglected to study the economic research figures from the Transport Holding Company, indicating quite clearly that with a fleet of 30 buses the average working expenses per car mile is 37d., and for fleets between 31 and 60 buses the figure rises to 39·4d., and at 1,000 buses the figure is 46d. These are certainly very illuminating figures. There is no doubt whatever that an increase in the size of the undertaking will not reduce costs; in fact the evidence available really points the other way.
My Lords, this is not a Bill to provide money for improving the efficiency of our bus transport system. It is a Bill, I must say, based on doctrinaire Socialism and hatred of private enterprise. It is nothing more than that. Her Majesty's Government have frequently said that the whole of the scheme is to be on a commercial basis. I would say that everything points to the opposite direction. Whichever way you look at it, the money under this Bill will have to be raised at a high rate of interest at the taxpayers' expense. Against this, what is the present return on the capital to be invested in British Electric Traction shares? I think it is well known to most of your Lordships that it is approximately 5¼ per cent. I suggest to your Lordships that it is hardly a good commercial transaction to borrow money
604
at 8 or 9 per cent., as interest rates are at the present time, and to receive 5¼ per cent. in return.
I would add that there is a very much more serious aspect to the already agreed purchase of the British Electric Traction shares. I wonder how many of your Lordships are aware that Her Majesty's Government, having done away with investment allowances in 1966, in 1967 negotiated to buy out the largest private bus operator, and then within a few weeks after agreement as to the purchase price announced that investment allowances are to be restored. I suggest that your Lordships consider what would have been the effect on the profitability of the transaction if beforehand Her Majesty's Government had informed the B.E.T. shareholders that it was their intention to bring back the 25 per cent. investment grant for buses. I am afraid I really fail to understand the explanation of this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, and I listened most carefully. In the City of London we have a word for such commercial transactions of which your Lordships must be well aware. I would say further only one thing. I think Her Majesty's Government should regret, and I go so far as to say be ashamed, to bring forward such a Bill at the present time of financial stringency, and it should never have reached your Lordships' House.
5.14 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the opposition to this Bill in this House from noble Lords opposite is exactly similar to the opposition put forward in the other place. Noble Lords opposite claim this is a Socialist doctrinaire line of approach. I think your Lordships must be convinced that the only argument advanced against this Bill up to now is Tory doctrinaire policy against public ownership. This seems to stand out a mile. No argument has been put in this House, and, after reading the debate in the other House, I would say no argument has been put forward at all except from doctrinaire private enterprise lines as to why this Bill should not be approved.
I would rather commend your Lordships to the very thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has considerable experience, as we all know, in this line of approach. How true it

605
was when he said the 1947 Act gave powers with a view to developing a publicly-owned bus service; but the nature of those powers was such that it demanded consultation with various areas and various undertakings before a scheme could be produced. I know so well the conversations that took place in the North-East, which it was thought would be a good experimental starting-off point. One of my oldest friends, Alderman Clydesdale, at that time a member of Newcastle City Council, opposed a nationalised public bus service, ardent Socialist though he was, and I know how in his later years he regretted very much the line that he had taken. I think we may take Lord Hurcomb's words that this Bill is a logical development of the principles that were accepted in the 1947 Act as a true statement of fact. It is very regrettable that the principles of that 1947 Act could not be and were not followed up after 1950, with the advent of a Labour Government. But with a majority of only six they had very little elbow room. They were defeated in 1951 and we know what has happened since, with the advent of successive Conservative Governments, who have done their utmost to prevent publicly-owned undertakings, particularly transport, being a success. Everything it was possible to shed from the publicly-owned transport undertakings which was showing a profit was unloaded under the auspices of the Conservative Party Government, and the publicly-owned undertakings were left with the bare bones. This is an historical fact. Wherever we look we see this.
One was not at all surprised to hear Lord Nugent of Guildford's opening remarks that nothing would make this Bill respectable; that it is a partisan measure. The whole of his line of argument against the Bill was partisan. The partisanship is not one-sided, if it exists on this side at all.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, of course the argument was partisan because we dislike the Bill. It does not necessarily make it Party partisan.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Then that is accepted; the only argument that can now be advanced against the Bill is a partisan argument. It is not a question of merits or logical development or
606
national interest. It is a Tory partisan argument against the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord would not misrepresent what I said. I said the Bill is argued against because it is a bad Bill. The argument is partisan in that sense. If that means being partisan, then we are partisan.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the words are on record and will, I am sure, be quoted in the future.
LORD DERWENT: Not misquoted, I hope.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The words are on record and will be quoted quite a lot in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made big play, as he has done on more than one occasion, of a particular reference in a report—he was a member, and I myself way chairman, of the body concerned—drafted in connection with London Transport, because it highlights bad labour relations. There was a sentence in that particular report that referred to labour relations and the difficulty of labour relations. I think it is as well to get this point on record, because this has been used far too often to imply that there were really bad labour relations in London Transport. The particular aspect criticised so much was labour relations at shed level, depot level, regarding rosters. This is not uncommon to London Transport. I agree that there was need for a big improvement of labour relations, in particular in relation to the institution of new rosters at depot level.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? The criticism went far beyond that. It was dealing with the great problem of getting the staff generally to drop their restrictive practices in order to push on with the modernisation of the services. This was the major problem.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the Report is there for anyone to read, and the evidence is there for anyone to read; and while in all modernisation schemes, whether they be public or private, there are certain difficulties that arise on both sides, this is the normal sequence. Because these difficulties arose with London

607
Transport so far as the institution of a new type of service is concerned, that is not uncommon to London Transport. It is part of an industrial development that has been taking place for many years, as the noble Lord knows.
The main criticism centred on the labour relations on this depot and rostering business. This is indeed common to bus services as a whole throughout the country. Midland Red, which I have quoted, has had considerable difficulty about this; the Northern General has had particular difficulty; Ribble have had particular difficulties. This is an automatic development, and not only those undertakings, but most municipal undertakings from time to time have considerable difficulties about these rostering developments which take place. Therefore, I think this should be taken in its correct perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, also twitted the Government for cutting down on the road programme by something like £90 million in the next few years. At the same time, your Lordships must be fully aware that the road programme, even with these cuts, is running at the highest level it has been at any time—roughly £270 million a year. This is nearly double what the Conservative Party left us when the Government took over in 1964. These things must certainly be taken in their correct perspective.
Now if I may turn to the Bill, first of all let me say how much I welcome it. It is most refreshing to receive what, in effect, is an additional borrowing powers Bill in which permission is asked to borrow additional capital to develop a publicly owned undertaking. Particularly since 1953 we have been used to the Minister of Transport repeatedly coming to the House and asking for additional borrowing powers in order to meet a deficit which had been created by Conservative Party policy. Up to 1953 the British Transport Commission, as envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and the Government of the day, was able to show a complete profit. From 1953 onwards the deficits commenced, and the Conservative Government of the day had repeatedly to come to the House to ask for additional moneys, to go into the open market to borrow money at a high percentage to
608
pay the interest on money borrowed at a low percentage. It was a question of paying up to 6⅞ per cent. on money previously borrowed at 3½ per cent. Therefore, it is indeed refreshing for a borrowing powers Bill of this description to come before Parliament with a view to seeking a development of the publicly owned undertakings.
Instead of those undertakings being the whipping boys, as it were, on behalf of the sacred name of private enterprise, and private enterprise getting all the profits, for the first time we are now asking Parliament to approve this additional £70 million in order that the Transport Holding Company may develop still further its policy. This is most refreshing, and it highlights decidedly the differences there are between both sides in this Chamber.
No matter what may be said, I think events have proved that there is no competition. There is no private enterprise competition in so far as bus services are concerned. Attempts have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and other Conservative speakers, to assert that there is this element of private enterprise in bus services. Where exactly is it? Before bus services can charge their fares they have to go to the Traffic Commissioners; they have to prove the need for the route; and objections take place on both sides before a monopoly, as it were, is given to a certain undertaking to run on the particular route. This having been done, the fares are then decided; and any bus service company wishing to increase its fares has to approach the Traffic Commissioners before they can do so. Is there any competition in that? Where does the competition lie? Many different bus groups are running in certain areas, and your Lordships must be well aware that there is no "competition" as I understand the word. When my noble friend Lord Shepherd asked where competition came in, of course members of the Opposition were not able to give any reply.
Remember, my Lords, bus services are not an industry. Buses and transport comprise a service. I think the nation has to realise more and more that it is a service as distinct from an industry; and if it is a service it has to face up to the needs of the country as a whole. Where

609
private bus services are running on uneconomic rural routes to-day, we see the services being withdrawn as quickly as possible. There are repeated appeals to the Traffic Commissioners to be allowed to give up a service because it is not profitable. The Traffic Commissioners have difficulty in trying to maintain a service in these areas. Surely, this does away completely with the old idea of competition in that particular direction; but it highlights the service nature of transport. I am delighted that the Transport Holding Company is extending the logical development, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, of the principles accepted by the 1947 Act. Although considerably mutilated by the Conservatives when they were in power, the principles still remain.
In regard to the question of the £35 million, I was delighted to hear that the assessment in the agreement with B.E.T. regarding the compensation to be paid to them, is based upon the actual value of assets, with just £1 million for compensation. The question of the good will, and the question of different values where previous payments of compensation have been made, appear to have gone by the board. I much prefer this question of payment according to a reasonable assessment of values. With these words, I thoroughly welcome this Bill, and sincerely hope that it will go on the Statute Book as quickly as possible in order to allow the Transport Holding Company to complete its negotiations with the B.E.T.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, I think accused some of my noble friends on this side of the House of not producing any new arguments in relation to this Bill. Perhaps I could say that I did not detect any new argument in Lord Popplewell's speech. In fact, we heard many of the arguments in his last major transport speech. But, worse than that, most of his arguments did not seem to appertain to this Bill at all.
I should say at the outset, as other noble Lords have said, that I am wholly against the proposals of this short financial Bill because at present, when the country's economy is so strained, it is foolish, reckless and imprudent to ask Parliament to approve the raising of a further £70 million to control bus services
610
which are at present doing neither harm to the community nor harm to the economy. I believe that this proposed public investment, whose terms we all knew were agreed even before it came before the other House, will prove a bad investment and is no more than a narrow, idealistic political decision equal in its wastefulness only to the groundnuts scheme.
I should like to concentrate on just two of the many aspects of the Bill. The first is the concept of integration, and what we understand by it. The term "transport integration", as I understand it, is a system which links up road, rail, water and air services, and which offers a continuity and balance of service for both passenger and freight. For the ordinary passenger this concept means that his travelling connections from, say, rail to bus are so organised that the least inconvenience is caused and the greatest efficiency is obtained. This applies also to the freight services. All too often today one finds this concept not being fulfilled by public transport. It is not an uncommon experience to arrive at a station, to get out of the train, and to hurry to catch a municipal bus, just in time to see its tail light disappearing in the distance, and then to find that the next bus is not due for an hour. It is this type of co-ordination which we went to see improved. It does not need a Transport Bill to do this. One noticeable gap in the Goverment's integration policy for transport is the complete absence of account being taken of air services. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, replies he can say why this has not been included in the Transport Bill.
I am a believer, unlike perhaps some of my noble friends on this side of the House, in fair competition between the major inland transport services, and that many of the hidden subsidies should be balanced up so that each can play their part. Where I disagree completely with this Government's transport policy is where competitive alternative services are abolished, where freedom of choice is eliminated, and where a bureaucratic dictator is perhaps set up to order how and when passengers may travel. This concept of transport monopoly, like so many other monopolies, will, I am sure, never prove workable or acceptable.

611
The other point I should like to raise is the matter of rural bus services and the T.U.C.Cs. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, will know that ever since the bus services were considered as an alternative service to the rail service, and ever since rail closures took place there have been constant complaints from users. But although complaints by users of rail services can go before T.U.C.Cs., complaints by users of bus services cannot. This matter was raised by the T.U.C.C. in their last Annual Report. I should like to ask the noble Lord why the powers of the T.U.C.Cs. cannot be extended to include bus services. Surely, if one were to give T.U.C.Cs. this extended responsibility it would give them a better picture of the transport facilities in their area.
This Bill is the forerunner of the major Transport Bill, and is, I fear, only a taste of what its "big brother" will give us in time to come. The Bill is seeking public money to purchase what is generally admitted to be a diminishing asset, and at a price which one is quite incapable of judging as good or bad. It purchases these assets not in a spirit of friendly negotiations between two completely free parties, but in a spirit of determined persuasion which, if unsuccessful, will lead to the use of the iron glove—compulsory purchase powers. The asset which it is to purchase is already wholly-owned by British Transport Holdings, which has received a reasonable return both in interest and in service for many years. Yet its purpose is to hand over the running of this asset from a tried and trusted management to a totally inexperienced National Bus Company.
With these considerations in mind, I should like to end by asking the noble Lord one simple question which I hope he will be able to answer in his reply. What are the economic assessments which have been made by the Government before they commit this £46 million of public money in buying out the B.E.T. interests and their subsidiaries, and what annual return do the Government expect to make on this investment?
5.36 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have before us this afternoon a tiny Bill, but a
612
Bill whose deficiency of size does not reflect its magnitude of effect. It is indeed a Bill of two clauses, one of which is the Title, but it nevertheless enables the Government to borrow £70 million for the nationalised bus companies. I know that noble Lords opposite will not be surprised to know that this Bill has not been received with great acclaim on this side of the House. Indeed, even the gentle words which the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, used to introduce the measure could not have deceived even him that by introducing this measure he had a tiger by the tail.
I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. He must have pleased his Front Bench, since he at least gave them great support. It must have been encouraging for them to hear at least one lone bird singing their praises. One would have thought that with a Bill of such great magnitude, involving the nationalising of buses, they would have succeeded in getting some other supporters, rather than just one, to support this great cause. However, perhaps they are not quite as enamoured as the rest of their Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, complained that we on this side of the House were objecting for purely partisan reasons. He said he had read the proceedings in another place in Hansard and had found no arguments put forward why this Bill should not go through. That is a curious argument for suggesting that therefore a Bill should go through. I could not help feeling that the noble Lord must have read the Hansard of another place with his eyes shut, because it was loaded with arguments why this Bill should not go through and why it was unacceptable to many people.
I shall merely keep my arguments down to four this afternoon, and perhaps the noble Lord would like to know at least four reasons why I do not like the Bill. First, I believe that it is unnecessary; secondly. I believe that it is wildly inflationary; thirdly, I believe that the timing of the Bill, if timing means anything at all, is quite disastrous; and, fourthly, I believe it is playing Party politics. I have yet to hear one reasonable and cogent argument to show that the buses at present under private ownership will he run better under public ownership from the point of view of the

613
users, of the community in general, and indeed from the point of view of efficiency.
The noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, very sensibly avoided the pitfall of saying that by nationalising these buses we should be getting economies of scale. As my noble friends Lord Teynham and Lord Nugent of Guildford pointed out, that argument was blown to pieces by Mr. Glasborow, who showed that, on the whole, the larger the undertaking the more expensive becomes the running of the buses. What then is the argument for making an even larger unit, when the Government themselves recognise that this certainly will not make running the buses any cheaper and will probably make them more expensive? The noble Lord, Lord Hilton, said that there would be rationalisation and a tidying-up of routes, and that we should do away with overlapping. But the Traffic Commissioners are here at the moment to prevent just that from happening, and they have always done their jobs very effectively. I cannot believe that it is therefore necessary to spend £70 million in order to achieve that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I correct the noble Earl? It is not £70 million in order to buy out B.E.T.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord accused my noble friend of splitting hairs. I think he could possibly be accused of doing the same thing. The Bill is for £70 million.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must correct the noble Earl. There is a vast difference—it is not splitting hairs—between £46 million and £70 million.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Bill refers to £70 million, but I accept the point of the noble Lord.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, said something about the value of this large public holding, the Transport Holding Company, being safeguarded from the inevitable changes in the bus industry which lie ahead, and that this Bill would do that. I find that a wholly unconvincing argument. He never said how that would be achieved, and yet that was adduced as being an argument for the Bill. I cannot see that these privately operated companies,
614
which are mostly doing an excellent job of work on slender profit margins, can be expected necessarily to do better or to run more efficiently if they are put into one large national bus company.
If one looks back, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford suggested—and I think he was right to suggest that —to January 16, which was only a month ago, one realises that it was the day on which the Prime Minister, after searching investigations, announced a whole series of Government cuts because of the dire state of the economy. Your Lordships will not need reminding of the defence cuts, the education cuts, the cuts in the Health Service, the prescription charges, the cuts in the road building programme and so forth. That was at 2.30 p.m., and at 4.30 along came the Government to ask Parliament in another place to give a Second Reading to a Bill to allow them to borrow a further £70 million in order to nationalise the buses. I am bound to say that this kind of thing, and this kind of timing, make people incredulous of the Government's real intention and determination to cut their own spending, and therefore of the need of the general public to cut theirs. When people see the Government embarking on expenditure of this magnitude and spending sums of money which are utterly unnecessary, it makes them feel that the situation cannot be so bad, and they ask why they should pull in their horns.
Everyone knows the huge difficulty which any Government have in curtailing expenditure in fields where policies are already in operation. To stop work on a half-built hospital or a half-built road is obviously ridiculous. But the one thing that a Government can do is at least to delay, if nothing else, the commencement of new policies involving expenditure. Therefore the mere timing of this Bill, irrespective of its merits or demerits, must surely rank as injudicious in the extreme.
I know it can be said that Government expenditure of this type, when assets are being transferred from one source to another, is totally different from that incurred when real calls are being made on capital, labour and materials. I accept that it is different, and that where capital, labour and materials are purchased as a direct result of Government expenditure

615
the effect on the economy is more obvious. But, equally, I believe that it is one of the most dangerous arguments to be used, and one that is used far too frequently nowadays, to say that the Government can embark on expenditure such as this, and of this magnitude, without its really affecting the economy at all. Of course it affects the economy. Where is the £70 million coming from? Does it come from taxation, does it come from printing Treasury Bills, or is it going to be borrowed at 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. to produce a return of only 5¼ per cent., as my noble friend Lord Teynham said? What happens to the difference of 2¾ per cent.? Where is the £70 million going to?—or if the noble Lord would prefer me to be a little more accurate, where is the £46 million going to? It is going to the Transport Holding Company and thence, by devious routes and via the British Electric Traction group, to shareholders.
What do the Government think the shareholders are going to do with this new-found hard cash? The noble Lord makes a yawning expression as if this is irrelevant, but it is not irrelevant. What are the shareholders going to do with this money? They are not going to put it under their beds and take it out of circulation. Presumably it may be used for purchasing other shares, where it will compete with other capital, or it may be used for other general forms of expenditure. But whatever the choices open, and whichever choice is eventually made by the individual shareholders, that sum of money is going to find its way into the economy by one way or another at a time when that is highly undesirable, and, in its way, it can only be inflationary.
One feels that all this is being done in order to fulfil the political ambition which was put forward by the Minister of Transport, that we should have a truly Socialist transport policy. I do not blame her for having political ambitions of this nature; indeed, I think it is right for such political ambitions to be held. I only wish I thought those ambitions were the right ones. But what I believe is wrong is that this Bill, which is not going to result in greater efficiency but is going to involve extra and unnecessary Government expenditure should be introduced at a time when, of all things, Government
616
expenditure should be kept to the absolute minimum.
The only thing I find it possible to commend in this Bill—and this is outstanding and I do commend it—is its brevity. I commend this to the Minister and suggest that she looks at it again in conjunction with the Transport Bill. Perhaps she might be so impressed with the success and the extent of this Bill that she will be minded to put down an Amendment to the Transport Bill to leave out everything after Clause 2.
5.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I do not intend to delve too deeply into the pros and cons of the nationalisation of the buses and coaches, and particularly into the immediate purpose of this Bill which is to enable the Transport Holding Company to complete the purchase of shares in the British Electric Traction bus group. But before I leave the question of the pros and cons of having a nationalised bus company, I should just like to draw attention, as several other noble Lords have done already, since it cannot be emphasised too much, to the paper that Mr. Glasborow, the head of the Economic Research Unit of the Transport Holding Company, presented to the Public Transport Association. Your Lordships had the statement quoted to you so I will not quote it again. But I would just say that the most important point in that statement was that he said that there was no evidence, so far as he could see, that the larger the size of the undertaking the greater the efficiency and the greater the saving in cost. He also went on to say that there was no evidence that, in relation to buses or transport generally, the public preferred a large undertaking. My Lords, we have had the evidence of the railways to bear that out. I would not think that the nationalisation of the railways had been an unqualified success. We have far higher fares; and certainly there is no evidence of greater efficiency. Nor is there any evidence that the public prefer the nationalised railways to the old private companies.
However, what I am really concerned about regarding this Bill is how it affects the economic welfare—the survival, in fact—of our country. Several other noble Lords have drawn attention to this

617
aspect, but I want to quote a few figures. In my speech in the economic debate a month ago, when speaking on the cuts, I drew attention to the fact that to all intents and purposes the first cuts of £320 million planned for 1968 were in fact being swallowed up. As I pointed out at that time, we had just had Supplementary Estimates through Parliament amounting to £120 million. I then went on to point out that for the next year, 1969, when the estimated cuts were £400 million odd, the increase in public expenditure that had already been estimated before those cuts were made was going to swallow those cuts to the extent of £800 million odd. I think that was the figure I quoted at that time.
Since that debate, the Treasury have presented some further Supplementary Estimates for the financial year, and those Estimates, which have been presented during the last four weeks, come to £562 million. I have to be fair, of course. There has been £120 million saved elsewhere, so one has to deduct that. Your Lordships can do the sum yourselves, but it is about £440 million. Now this is a very serious matter, because the £300 million cuts have completely gone. They have vanished, like Alice through the looking glass. They are not there. I quite understand that, in Supplementary Estimates, Parliament is meeting the bill for policies already decided upon, but it is nevertheless a very serious matter.
It is extraordinary that we had all this wailing and gnashing of teeth—with such headlines in the Press as "Cabinet in crisis", and so on—over these cuts of £300 million, but now when we have £440 million increased expenditure added by these Supplementary Estimates nobody raises a murmur. I have not seen or heard it mentioned at all in the Press or anywhere else. It is quite fantastic. Really, the Government's economic policy reminds me of an American barn dance that was rather popular in this country about twelve years ago. I think it went something like, "You take one step forward and two to the rear". The Government's economic policy is akin to that. I would have hoped that, with public expenditure in 1968 of £15,378,000 million—I am sorry; £15,378 million—
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Viscount assure us that he has that figure right, after all? He seemed to have some difficulty with it. Perhaps he would repeat the last one.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Yes, my Lords. It is £15,378 million.
LORD LEATHERLAND: But the noble Viscount said "thousand million". I thought he had gone wrong somewhere. He must be careful with his noughts. If he were to issue bus tickets like that he would soon be in trouble.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: The Government do not split hairs over a few million. Anyway, it is the astronomical figure of over £15,000 million. I should have thought that, with that astronomical figure of expenditure and with the cuts swallowed up, the Government would have been only too anxious not to embark on any further unnecessary expenditure. But, no. Here we have this proposal to borrow another £70 million. Really, my Lords, the Government remind me of a bankrupt staying in the Ritz Hotel and saying that he owes so much that a little extra on the bill is neither here nor there. This is really the rake's progress: it is not responsible government.
I could have some sympathy with this Bill if it was a viable enterprise, but we have no evidence to support that. I believe my noble friend Lord Teynham said that the current income return on bus companies was 5½ per cent. The bank rate is 8 per cent., so presumably the Government cannot borrow this money under 8 per cent.—at least, not legally, although I suppose that in certain circumstances Governments can do things which private people would perhaps call illegal. Anyway, they cannot borrow it, or I cannot see how they can borrow it, at under 8 per cent. You cannot call that a viable enterprise. Of course, it may well be that the bus companies may increase their returns when they are nationalised. That may well be; but the whole evidence is against it. And, as I have heard other noble Lords say, with the increasing ownership of the motor car it would appear that the bus companies are a declining service.

619
There is one other aspect of this Bill that worries me, and that is the extra £24 million. Of the £70 million, £46 million is going to B.E.T. and there is, I understand, going to be this £24 million for contingencies and such like. It is the contingencies which worry me, because of course that is a very wide term, and it is obvious that this money is going to be used for the nationalisation of other bus companies. It probably will not stop there because this Bill, in company with the Transport Bill, will give the National Bus Company vast powers. It will be able to have garages, repair shops, taxis, factories for manufacturing cars, and in fact any form of manufacturing that it desires to embark upon. It is just another instance of using the taxpayers' money—money created by private enterprise—to compete unfairly with that sector of the economy, the private sector, which produces the wealth of the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, sighs; but it is a completely true economic fact.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I want to help the noble Viscount. If he had heard the speech of his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, he would have realised that while Lord Nugent said that there was a degree of competition in the sense of the relationship of one management and another, he also admitted that there was no competition between the publicly-owned and the privately-owned bus companies.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: But, my Lords, I am speaking in the wider sphere. As I pointed out, this Bill will give the National Bus Company power to manufacture cars, to have machine shops, and so on. Strictly, of course, it will not happen immediately, but it will certainly happen in the future, because this additional expenditure creates a precedent. This is a partisan measure of the Socialists. I have already said that, in the midst of this economic crisis, I consider it irresponsible.
What are people abroad going to think, those who have lent us money? What will they think when they see another Government measure designed further to increase borrowing and, as has been pointed out by my noble friend on my right, to put more money into the already overheated economy at home? As my
620
noble friend has said, the £46 million that is to be paid to the shareholders is not going to be put under their mattresses; it is going into the economy. This is just another indication that this Government—and I know this is phrasing it strongly—put their Marxist philosophy before the real economic interests of the nation.
6.2 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, because I find this Bill far too depressing to spend much of my valuable time on it. It is ill-timed; it is unduly expensive, and this House can do nothing to alter it. So all I shall do is briefly to recapitulate some of the arguments—which I repeat are not Party arguments, but are partisan because we hate this Bill—that have been so ably put forward by noble Lords on this side of the House. I should also like to ask one or two questions, questions which have been asked before to-day, which were asked in another place, in the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he comes to reply, will be the first Minister to make any attempt to answer them.
This question of the Bill being ill-timed is important. The Government had asked us, the taxpayers, to try not to spend any money even if we thought it fairly necessary, if we could possibly help it—unless it helped exports. I am absolutely astonished that no Minister has yet got up and used the argument that this Bill will help exports—at least they have not tried that one on us. Yet at the moment when the Government asked us, and rightly, not to spend money, they announced certain cuts, so-called, that they were going to make. They came to Parliament to ask to borrow up to another £70 million for matters which I suggest are not as urgent as all that in the present economic climate. And that is the point, the present economic climate.
I am sorry, but I find this shocking. I was shocked as soon as I heard of it. I know it is part of the Transport Bill; but it is not necessary to do it in this way and it is not necessary to do it at this moment. Parts of the Transport Bill, should it become law (though I hope it will not) will not come into operation for some considerable time. To do this at this moment, in my view is an absolute insult to the taxpayers. It is

621
asking them to do something that the Government are not prepared to do. But worse is to follow. This was a month ago. During this month it has become quite apparent that the figures for the Government cuts given at that time are in large measure "phoney". There will not be any saving at all. The use of the word "cuts" is also "phoney". All it means is that the Government are going to try not to increase their expenditure this year to the same extent as they had intended. That, in this Government's parlance, is a cut. May I go into this question of figures again. The noble Lord got somewhat heated—
LORD SHEPHERD: I did not get heated.
LORD DERWENT: If the noble Lord did not get heated, he at least was deliberately misunderstanding. As I understand it, there are £35 million for the shareholders of B.E.T. I think we are agreed on that figure. But I was somewhat amused by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, raising the wonderful question of the value of the assets. I do not know whether I dare say so to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, but I thought he was being a little naïve when he said that this was an ordinary transaction as between willing partners. He did not use quite those words—
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I was careful not to use those words. All I said was that the terms had been agreed and accepted.
LORD DERWENT: That is true, my Lords. But under what conditions? The assets were valued by the purchaser. They were not agreed; they were valued by the purchaser. Before the seller was approached the Government were told the price that was going to be offered. All was settled by the purchaser, and the seller was told that that was the price. He was virtually told at the same time that if he did not accept it then there would be a take-over under the Transport Bill. That is the actual position. The noble Lord shakes his head. But he cannot deny that that was the situation. That is quite clear.
I should like to ask a question in regard to the next section of the £70 million, the section for the minority shareholders. I was not quite clear from the
622
noble Lord's opening speech whether the £11 million is the actual figure which is now known or whether it is an estimate. If it is the actual figure, then this is the first time we have heard it. It is remarkable that when this was dealt with in another place apparently no costing had been done as to what prices would he offered for the minority shareholding. That is an extraordinary way of conducting a takeover bid. Let us accept that figure, I am taking it that that is the exact figure. That leaves £24 million, a "floater", a blank cheque, which Parliament is being asked to produce, and I shall have something further to say about the blank cheque aspect shortly.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, was very scathing when it was pointed out that to cut the road programme, having postponed much of it last year, was an odd way to behave, when it is agreed in every country—and, I think, agreed on both sides of your Lordships' House—that improved roads are to the commercial benefit of the whole country. I do not know whether any noble Lord is prepared to argue about it, but that is so. Yet there has been a cut. And we are now setting out to nationalise the buses which, I suggest, is certainly not going to be a commercial success for the country. So my noble friend was quite right to point out that this was an odd thing to do at this moment. We all know, of course, that these cuts were not thought out. They were made "across the board" so that no Minister should feel unduly unhappy.
We are going into this business as a country. I say "as a country", because the money is not the Government's money. This business of running all the buses all over the country is coming in the next Bill, at a time when, as the Minister of State said—and I give his own words:
"The growth of private car ownership has led to a continuous fall in the demand for bus services."
That is the time when the country is going into this rather extraordinary business. And, my Lords, what a way to raise the money! Not by taxation, because that would be too unpopular with the taxpayer. But the taxpayer will have to pay for it all the same. It has been pointed out that the current return on

623
these bus services which are being taken over is 5¼ per cent. The money will be borrowed at somewhere between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., probably nearer 8 per cent., and so there will be a loss. Where is the loss met from? From the Transport Holding Company's profits. Who do the Transport Holding Company's profits belong to? The taxpayer. The profits belong to the taxpayer, however much people may try to disguise it, and so the taxpayer is going to pay for the borrowing at 8 per cent. and the receiving of 5¼ per cent. I must say that in ordinary business that would be an odd thing to do.
There has been a great deal of talk—I am glad to say not by noble Lords opposite to-day, but in the other place from Ministers—about all this making good commercial and operating sense. That phrase cropped up all the time, and we should like an explanation of it. There was a tremendous amount of talk by Ministers about all this making good commercial and operating sense. We have had absolutely no explanation of that phrase from anyone, particularly the reference to "commercial sense". There undoubtedly will be a loss shown in the next few years by operating on this scale with no competition, and I shall have a word to say about competition in a moment. There will certainly not be a great profit, and it cannot be called good commercial and operating sense. I wonder whether the noble Lord will explain to us what that means.
What does the Minister herself know about commerce or bus operating? Yet she has made clear in the big Transport Bill that she is going to be the "big boss". Everything is going to be referred to Whitehall. She says, "The Minister will decide—the Minister will decide". My Lords, as sure as night follows day, in the not far distant future this enormous organisation which she will be setting up will be rigid and run by the Minister's stooges in London. It has happened before time and again. I think that the real question we want to ask ourselves is, why is all this necessary now—"necessary"; I do not mean "advisable"—at this very awkward moment? That is the question which I would ask the noble Lord, because the answer has not been given.
624
My Lords, may I say a word about this floating credit of £24 million? Apparently, that is included in case the Transport Holding Company wishes to buy up any other bus company. But is not this a rather exhorbitant figure to ask of Parliament at this particular moment? The Holding Company has used—I think my figures are correct—£21 million of its extra loan powers since 1962, when it was set up. I am well aware that it was set up by a Conservative Government, but apart from the fact that anything we do is first-class, this sort of thing ought to be looked at every few years whoever may have set it up. I am advised that £21 million is the figure which has been borrowed since 1962, of which over half, £11 million, has been used since the end of 1966. Now the Holding Company has one year to run, and we are being asked to give it further powers to borrow £24 million, which is more than it has spent in the last six years—and this for one year.
What is this figure, my Lords? There has been no explanation, and I think it is outrageous that the taxpayer should be asked to give these facilities when quite likely the money will be spent without any reason being given at all. This "floater" ought to be cut out of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will still think again. They must have some leeway, but that is far too big a figure for one year, and it ought not to be there. In my submission, the Government have made out no case for buying B.E.T. at this moment. They do not need this very large "floater"; it is simply a figure. This is inefficiency.
If it is of any interest to the Government, I will tell them one of the reasons why at this moment they are so unpopular in the country. I do not think that even noble Lords opposite would suggest that they are riding on the crest of the popularity wave. The explanation is that at last it is sinking into the minds of the taxpayers that this is a spending Government; that the taxpayers are not consulted, and that under this Government taxpayers' money is something to be spent and not to be saved. Here again in this Bill is another example of that.
We are now on the way to the nationalisation of the buses, if the Minister can

625
get the legislation through. When has a nationalised industry ever paid? In the end the taxpayers always pay. Where there is no competition there is no efficiency. In spite of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, competition in management is very important in this industry. In a short time there will be no competition in management. Everyone will be looking after his own job, but it does not go for efficiency. Finally, may I say one word of comfort to your Lordships. If this Bill and the next Bill go through the Minister of Transport, of whom we are all so fond, will be able to say that at last we have a Socialist transport policy. And, my Lords, speaking as a taxpayer, I say, "God help us!"
6.19 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, seeing the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, across the Floor, I must admit that this seems rather like old times. I am sure that the noble Viscount will remember that he and I crossed swords on this very subject six years ago when he, as the Minister responsible in your Lordships' House, piloted the Bill which set up the Transport Holding Company. I have refreshed my memory about the speeches which the noble Viscount made, and one of the matters on which he placed great emphasis in his speeches, and a very special thing which he, and presumably his colleagues in the Conservative Government of the day, had in mind was the administrative ability of the Transport Holding Company to look after the various companies that were subsidiary to them. Unlike their colleagues in another place, noble Lords opposite have not said one word of praise for the operational management of the Transport Holding Company. Their friends in another place paid tribute, and I should like to pay tribute, to the Company, because what the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, had in mind has come about in fact. They have administered their organisation with the highest degree of commercial ability.
LORD DERWENT: You are doing away with them.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord will just be quiet, I am giving praise to a machinery which was set up by a Conservative Government. I should like to spell out what the company has been
626
able to do because this is important in the light of our belief that it is capable of being the holding company of a much larger organisation. Up to the present the Holding Company have b it-rowed some £21 million and have paid interest to the Treasury on all sums they have borrowed, and, on top of that, during the four years for which I have the figures, they made a profit of some £45 million. I should not have thought that such a company could be said to have failed, or that the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, would ever feel disappointed in the Company in whose creation he played such a great part. The Transport Holding Company has proved itself to be a very efficient body.
It has been said that this Bill is a Socialist pipe-dream and that it is being brought about because of Socialist philosophy. I will freely admit that six years ago, from the Benches opposite, I was advocating this very process of development into the field of bus transport. I believe that I was right. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was right about the inevitability in the growth of public transport in this field. I think that I shall be able to show that this is not a Socialist pipe-dream. I should like to read to your Lordships from a letter addressed to Sir Reginald Wilson by the Minister of Transport on December 20, 1967, and I would be happy to place this letter in the Library. My right honourable friend said:
"Earlier this year you told me that your Board considered the circumstances were such that it might be desirable for the Transport Holding Company to seek to acquire full control of the B.E.T. group of bus companies, in the great majority of which the Transport Holding Company already had large shareholdings, equal in fact to that of the B.E.T."
The initiative did not come from my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. It came from this commercial organisation set up by the noble Viscount, Lord Mills. Therefore I suggest that, even though this proposal may be in tune with our Socialist thinking, the origin of it came from this commercial organisation set up by a Conservative Government.
I would now, if I may, deal with the financial position before I deal with some other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was closer to the right figures than some other noble Lords. The £21 million borrowed up to the present has

627
been used not only for the purchase of companies, but also to provide new fixed assets, the purchase of new vehicles and other things, which any commercial company requires if it is to develop and go forward. I doubt whether there is any large commercial concern in this country which is not forced to borrow or have an overdraft from the bank from time to time.
LORD DERWENT: I was not criticising it.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am making the point because it was suggested that this was some strange organisation to whom money meant nothing, and I am suggesting that they are operating on a commercial basis. The sum of £35 million is for the purchase from the B.E.T. company of the shares in its subsidiary bus companies; £1·3 million is for the preference shares, and £9·4 million for the private shareholders in the subsidiaries. The noble Lord wanted to know why these figures were not available when the Bill was in another place. They have only just been decided by negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that this deal was imposed on B.E.T., that the only people who were concerned to place a value on the shareholdings were the purchasers and that they had more or less put a shotgun to the directors' heads. I know the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and some more of his colleagues, and I do not believe that any of these gentlemen would have acceded to something for which they were responsible to their shareholders by the shotgun method. The fact is that this was a free negotiation between the management of the Transport Holding Company and B.E.T. They had as their advisers two of the most prominent and respected private banking organisations, who have had great experience in the valuation of property and shares.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. May I remind him that the Minister had already announced last autumn that she was going to give the P.T.A.s power to acquire compulsorily the bus undertakings they needed to reorganise their services, so that B.E.T.
628
knew they were under threat of extinction anyway, and therefore had no alternative but to make the best terms they could.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord finds himself in the position I find myself in sometimes when I get on my feet too quickly. I have not come to the P.T.A. I will show that the particular reference of my right honourable friend to the P.T.A. might well have no direct reference to the attitude of the directors of B.E.T. The point is that the figures were negotiated by the two boards with two most respected and experienced private banks who had had a great deal of experience in this field.
To return to my figures, there is a balance left of some £33 million. The Transport Holding Company believe that they will need £9 million during this year for capital purchases and for fixed assets such as vehicles, ships and the like. This leaves a figure of some £24 million, which we believe is necessary for contingency planning up to the end of 1969. I believe this is a reasonable sum to meet the likely contingencies. There are certain bus companies which are already making approaches to the Transport Holding Company, offering to sell their shares; and there are also road haulage companies who are of a like mind. It was in 1964 that the Transport Holding Company made their first purchase of private companies, and that, of course, was during the period of office of noble Lords opposite. There was no suggestion then that the Transport Holding Company should not buy private companies.
I should like now to deal with the point that was made as to the possible effect on our economy—although I am bound to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that while I have come prepared on most occasions to deal with a wide subject I could not possibly go into a wide-ranging economic discussion about Treasury loans, and the like.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord deal with the point that I made: that the Minister had already announced last autumn that she intended to give the P.T.A.s powers to take up all the bus companies they wanted to, so that all

629
these people knew that if they did not agree they would be made to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope the noble Lord does not think that I have a repution for dodging an issue. I intended to deal with the P.T.A.s in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. What he wanted to know was the effect of setting up the national bus company, and particularly that of future planning, especially in the conurbations. I was intending to deal with that; but if I should forget, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will remind me.
I thought the important point made by noble Lords opposite was that at this very moment of time when we are seeking to hold public expenditure in check we were involved in this scheme. I am bound to say that I find very strange, coming from noble Lords opposite, this sudden urgency to reduce public expenditure. If I did my researches since 1964, I could find many occasions on which noble Lords opposite en masse have all trooped in on issues which would have involved this country in infinitely larger fields of public expenditure than we ourselves would ever dream of undertaking. In fact, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that we have cut public expenditure from the programme planned by noble Lords opposite if they had been returned in 1964. We are very conscious of the effect of public expenditure, and this has been very much in our mind.
To suggest that this particular operation in itself is inflationary really means that noble Lords have not looked at the facts. This sum of money, this £46 million if we refer to the B.E.T. deal, would clearly come from the Consolidated Fund; and every one of us knows that the Consolidated Fund is raised on the gilt-edged market and from National Savings and the like. It is also raised by taxation. All these operations are, in fact, withdrawing free money from the market. We use the Consolidated Fund in the field of public expenditure. This sum, in our view, is being invested to purchase a series of companies.
It is perfectly true that the money returns to what some noble Lords refer to as a sort of open market; to the shareholder. But the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, knows perhaps better than I do the role and field of operation of the B.E.T. He might like to be reminded,
630
if he needs to be, of the statement in the Financial Times, in which the directors of the B.E.T. say:
"The directors are reported to have said in their letter that over a reasonable period the resources released by the sale can be employed to better advantage in new, business enterprises and in expanding existing interests than if they remain locked up in the bus companies."
Those are the words of the directors of the B.E.T., and it is quite clear that in their own particular field of operation this money will be invested to the national good. Is it to be said that it is inflationary if this money were to be available to be used for the purchase of new machinery or for new manufacturing capacity? Certainly it puts pressures on our manufacturing capability. But surely we all realise that what we need is new machinery; therefore, if this money is available for that, clearly it is being used to the best advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I thought, indulged in not a partisan speech, but one of sheer knocking. He made a scathing and bitter attack on the management of the London Transport Board and presumably of the other nationalised industries. So far as he was concerned, all the companies that are in private enterprise have clean and virile hands. If that is so, all I can say to the noble Lord is that he knows less about industry and trade than I do. I do not say that nationalised industries are all perfect. I wish to heaven that all our private companies were perfect; but that is far from being the case. It is true that there has been criticism of the London Transport Board management in various fields. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, would agree with me that a lot of the trouble of management in the London Transport Board is a sense of disillusionment in trying to carry out a public transport organisation with pressures all around them that make it pretty well impossible for them to provide fares and services that meet the public demand. I believe that that is one of the basic problems of the London Passenger Transport Board.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford (and perhaps I may then deal with the P.T.A.s), I think that one of the most, I will not say remarkable, but satisfying things is that the Conservative Greater London Council have agreed

631
in principle to take over the responsibility of the London Passenger Transport Board.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I intervene? Could the noble Lord tell us the terms, and if they asked that the whole of the capital structure should be written off first?
LORD SHEPHERD: I said that we have agreed in principle. We are now seeking—I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is smirking about. I thought this was a serious debate. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, asked me a serious question. I said that we have agreed in principle. The details of such a change are tremendous, and it is not done overnight. To me the most significant thing is that there is a recognition by the Greater London Council and by London Passenger Transport Board that until the authority who is responsible for the traffic and the road planning and all those other aspects that have an effect upon the buses is also responsible for the operation of the public transport services, this problem will never be dealt with. I remember arguing this point many years ago when I sat on the other side of the House, because it seemed to me to be so obvious. This is why we have taken the view that we should create the Passenger Transport Authorities, so that there is a direct responsibility on the bodies in the locality which are responsible for traffic and road building to participate in planning and deciding how the public transport services are to be run.
I think this approach holds out the best hope for dealing with the transport problems, not only of London but also of our great conurbations. This has been the view of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport from the beginning, and I should have thought those who believe, as I do, that the local authorities have a great part to play, would welcome this opportunity and this challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is quite right: when my right honourable friend said that she intended to pass the transport undertakings in these conurbations to the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive, in the vast majority of cases these will be the existing local authority bus undertakings.
632
It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, can see in the Transport Bill, that the national bus company, which will be the offshoot coming from the Transport Holding Company, will have a responsibility to cooperate with the P.T.A.s, and there may be at some time an interchange of vehicles and fixed assets between one and the other, in order that there should be a tight yet, on the other hand, flexible transport unit, taking into account not only the conurbations but all those more rural districts surrounding the conurbations. The noble Lord may say that this may have appeared to be a threat to the B.E.T. and to others, but it was perfectly clear, at least to me, that the national bus company, when it came into being, would be more of a partner with the passenger transport authorities than be absorbed into them.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that, apart from the question of labour, this new creation, particularly as we should be bringing together two separate organisations, would have a major effect upon wage rates, and that this would naturally force up fares. Perhaps since he left the other place the noble Lord has lost his touch or lost his connection. The fact is that both the T.H.C. and the B.E.T. busmen are in the company sector of the bus industry. They all receive the same rates of pay, and therefore the bringing together of these two organisations will in no way affect the rates of pay of one set of bus drivers or the other.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I intervene and put another point? I think the noble Lord's excellent memory is failing. One of the principal points made by his right honourable friend the Minister in this connection was that the formation of the national bus company would be giving a greater uniformity of working conditions, not only in wage rates but in a whole lot of other benefits. She made that point strongly. That confirms the point that I was making.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at present I am dealing only with pay. This was the point made by other noble Lords: that because of increased wages there would be increased fares. There may well be improvements in standards and

633
conditions of work, and I myself should not have thought that that was something one would decry. I think it is a good thing. Perhaps if we brought them closer together many of our present difficulties in regard to labour relations and the like would disappear.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, drew my attention to the fact that it was in 1966 that the investment allowances were lost and that the investment grant suddenly became available after the agreement between the T.H.C. and B.E.T. The noble Lord will remember that the allowances disappeared under a Finance Act, and it applied to every conceivable organisation in this country. We were looking at new methods of investment stimulation. But, my Lords, we brought in the investment grant to the bus companies for one purpose; namely, to give assistance to at least keeping in check the rise in fares and the like, which could well have come about as a result of the increased salaries paid to busmen and the fuel bill, increased through taxation. There was nothing sinister in this matter. I am sure the noble Lord will accept that.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would have been more beneficial and more fair to let the shareholders of B.E.T. know before the agreement was made that this investment allowance was coming back?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, even I, as a Minister who usually has his ears fairly close to the ground, do not hear everything that is going on, and in this particular field it is difficult to divulge such information. But I asked my advisers this morning the question whether, if this information had been available, it would have had any effect upon the price that would have been agreed by B.E.T. and T.H.C., and I have been informed that because of the manner in which the value of the company was arrived at, any effect would have been so marginal that in terms of the total figure it would have been very small indeed.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, at least is with me. He believes in coordination of transport. I am glad to see that he is a convert in that connection, although he regrets that competition is now disappearing. But I think he will now accept that apart from competition
634
in the production of balance sheets and trading accounts there is no real competition in the bus industry. In fact, one can say that the profits which these companies make, whether they be public or private, depend to a certain extent upon their efficiency, but more on the way in which the Traffic Commissioners decide what shall be the fares. This is based upon the view that there should be a reasonable return, and they reckon some 8 or 9 per cent. on capital. This is the way in which the fares have been decided. It is interesting to see—and I hope noble Lords will give credit for this—that B.E.T. have earned some 9 per cent. on total capital employed over recent years, and the Transport Holding Company have earned the same percentage. Although it varies slightly between England and Scotland, on average it is the same.
There is no reason to believe that the profitability of the B.E.T. companies will be lost because of this amalgamation. I suspect, as was the case in the past, that the men who now are the management of the Southdown Bus Company, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, referred, will remain. So far as I understand the position, there is no intention, by this amalgamation, to make larger operating units. I agree with noble Lords opposite that there is an optimum size in a bus operation. There is some informed opinion that it should be 800 to 1,000 vehicles. We had some figures quoted that showed it was cheaper to operate bus companies of 30, but nobody would suggest that we could have such types of companies operating in our big conurbations. Therefore, while we are bringing together these two organisations with some 25,000 vehicles it is certainly not the intention that we should try to operate this as one mammoth organisation, but to operate it as the T.H.C. have operated in the past, through subsidiaries, and they have as much experience of doing this as B.E.T.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, naturally could not resist bringing up Thomas Cook's. They have done very well. I do not see why, because this organisation is in tourism and banking and is nationally owned, and because it is making us a profit of some £1·7 million a year on net assets of some £5 million—although because of its

635
banking interest naturally it has other great sums available to it—we should suddenly make it available to private industry. Let us hope we have some competition in this field between publicly-owned companies and private industries.
My Lords, I seem to have been speaking for quite some time. I hope I have answered a reasonable proportion of all the questions put to me. I am bound to say I felt very much in tune with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that this is an inevitable further stage in the development of transport. What we are seeking is the provision of a public transport service that is available at reasonable rates to ordinary people who may decide that they do not wish to use their own private motor car or who may not be able to own a motor car. It has wider aspects because it has a direct impact upon our industrial efficiency and industrial development. I believe this is a commercial operation. As I said at the beginning, this is not just a Socialist pipe dream. It was initiated by businessmen of a commercial organisation which was set up by that very tough businessman, the noble Viscount, Lord Mills.
VISCOUNT MILLS: My Lords, since the noble Lord has been good enough to mention my name, I should like to tell the House why. The reason we set up the Transport Holding Company was because a Commission had been created, it had been running for some time and it had far too much to do. Its mind could not be on the railways, which was the asset which was losing so much money, and therefore we created the Transport Holding Company. What I regret is the timing of this Bill. I think it is the wrong time. I think the public will feel it is the wrong time. That is really all I want to say.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the House will permit me, the noble Viscount drew my attention to the one point made to which I did not reply, the question of timing. It is perfectly true that the bringing together of B.E.T. and T.H.C. will make the operation of the Transport Bill easier; that is still, in terms of being implemented, some years away, although the Bill should be passed this year. There had been this agreement with the shareholders, the Board of B.E.T. and also the
636
private shareholders of the subsidiaries. I think it would have been very unfair, and certainly it would not be up to City ethics, if having made an agreement we were not prepared to find the money to carry out that agreement. That is the basis of this timing.
VISCOUNT MILLS: My Lords, I suggest that that has applied to many things to which the Government have set their hand and from which they have had to withdraw.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]
6.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Hearsay evidence to be admissible only by virtue of this Act and other statutory provisions or by agreement]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble and learned Lord said: Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, expressed the view that Clause 1(2) for its complication was worthy of a Finance Bill. I said I was glad to hear him say that, because I myself found it very difficult to understand. I have come to the conclusion that it is not really necessary. The purpose of the subsection is to make it clear that a statement which fails to qualify for admissibility under one statutory provision is not thereby prevented from qualifying under another. Clause 1(2) is intended to remove any possibility of conflict between a provision (such as Clause 2(2)) which makes admissibility subject to the court's discretion and one

637
which makes the same statement admissible as of right.
It is not very likely, though it is theoretically possible, that such a situation could arise; a possible instance, I suppose, would be afforded by an out-of-court statement amounting to an admission, but this is expressly dealt with by Clause 9(5). However, even in the case of such an out-of-court statement not expressly covered by Clause 9(5) there seems to be no possibility of such a conflict. Those provisions (for example Clause 2(2) and Clause 4(2)) which make admissibility discretionary operate on statements made admissible "by virtue of this section" and cannot therefore affect the admissibility of a statement by virtue of some other enactment. Moreover, Clause 1(1) states in terms that a statement shall be admissible to the extent that it is admissible by virtue of any provision in Part I of the Bill or any other statutory provision. In view of these unambiguous words, there appears to be no need for subsection (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (2).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD WILBERFORCE: Having expressed myself with some vigour about this subsection on the Second Reading of the Bill, I feel I should be ungracious if I were not to express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for now consenting to its removal. While I still consider that the Bill as a whole and in many other respects is needlessly complicated, certainly one welcomes this effort at simplification, because it at any rate indicates to those of us, and I think there are many, who consider that most of our legislation is drafted in too tortuous or elaborate terms, that our views may be shared in high places in certain respects. Having heard the Lord Chancellor's statement as to the lack of necessity for this subsection, a view with which I entirely agree, I certainly welcome and would support the Amendment for its deletion.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I would only briefly echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has said. I think in view of a number of factors, one of which I should like to
638
mention in a moment, the simpler we make Part I of this Bill the better.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It might be appropriate at this stage to raise one of the points where this Bill departs from the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson. The clause starts "In any civil proceedings", and this means that the rules of evidence which are contained in Part I of this Bill will be applicable in the magistrates' courts.
In paragraphs 48 to 52 of their Report on Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings, the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord advised that this should not be so, and they have really taken two points as underlying this reason—possibly three points, but two seem to me to be of particular importance. The first point is that it is not going to be easy to establish the rules, or indeed any sort of cohesion in the application of the rules, where the discretion of the court is involved, as is the case; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already mentioned the fact.
The second point is that of the difficulty of providing for the procedural safeguards, which are of course to be dealt with under Rules of Court for the High Court and the county courts and, I would expect, in other necessary tribunals. The Committee in its Report pointed out that a number of the civil jurisdictions of the magistrates are not really such as to give rise to the type of evidential problem with which this Part of the Bill deals. Nevertheless, there are points of civil jurisdiction, such as the work of the domestic court in guardianship and affiliation, and particularly in matrimonial cases, where their work is of the same character as civil litigation conducted in the High Court, or now in the county courts.
I was looking at the Rules at the back of Stone to see whether there was already anything which appertains to this question of evidence. Of course, it is quite true that the Evidence Act 1938, as I understand it, applies in the magistrates'

639
courts. Then the Report of the Committee drew attention to the fact that the sort of matters with which that Act deals do not often arise in magistrates' courts. But I should think that the sort of matter with which this Bill deals may easily arise. Therefore, if we are to have a Bill which goes against the recommendation of the Committee, I think it would be useful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could tell us, at any rate in outline, what he is proposing to do in order to get over the practical difficulties which the Committee have pointed out. I can, for instance, see nothing in the Magistrates' Courts (Matrimonial Proceedings) Rules 1960 which is helpful. It may be that an Amendment should be put in there. Equally, the short passage in the Magistrates' Courts Rules of 1952, Rules 55 to 57, really has nothing at all which is relevant to this matter.
I would not know in the least what the noble and learned Lord has in mind by way of a possible amendment of these Rules. I cannot believe that anything nearly so complicated as would be required for the High Court is going to be workable in the magistrates' courts, particularly when some of the people concerned are not legally represented at all. I really think that we ought to have an explanation of this matter before we pass this clause in its present form. I hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to enlighten me. I may have to trouble your Lordships by returning to this matter at a later stage, but I think it would be useful if the noble and learned Lord could give some sort of outline of what he has in mind.
7.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, the whole question whether the Bill should extend to magistrates' courts was always a matter of opinion. The Committee made that clear. On balance, they recommended that, for the time being at any rate, the present Rules of Evidence with respect to hearsay should continue to apply in civil cases heard in magistrates' courts. They say:
"In reaching this conclusion we have been influenced by the fact that the Criminal Law Revision Committee are currently reviewing the rules of evidence in criminal cases."
640
As I understand it from inquiries which have been made, those recommendations are likely to include features which will make them unsuitable for civil proceedings. Moreover those with great experience of civil proceedings in those courts have expressed the view that the Law Reform Committee's proposals would be suitable for magistrates' courts, and that it would be better to apply them than to leave magistrates' courts, when exercising civil jurisdiction, to be governed by Rules of Evidence which would no longer be applied in any other tribunal. It would mean, for example, that it would be the only court left in which the Evidence Act would apply. I agree that rules would be necessary, but I should think they would be of a much more limited character than those in High Courts proceedings.
The only occasion that it is likely to arise in civil proceedings in magistrates' courts is, for example, in regard to statements by doctors. But there should be no difficulty in applying these new hearsay provisions to that matter. One usually gets a date which is fixed well ahead in the magistrates' court—certainly more than seven days—and it is just this sort of thing which, unless there is any real dispute on it, ought to be dealt with in this way rather than a doctor having to come to Court only to find that his attendance is unnecessary. The only other proceedings in which I think such evidence might well be needed is in proceedings for rates, for example, where already, as I understand, some rates are dealt with by computers. I imagine some rules will have to be made to cover that. There is not usually much difficulty.
Then, of course, there is the Bankers' Books Evidence Act. There again, if you have once got a bank statement in evidence it is in effect up to the other party to challenge it, which is not always easy. Still, you can put in your own cheque book and counterfoils, and you will be able to put in the cheque book and counterfoils of a third party. So there will be a necessity for rules; but I imagine that they will be of a much simpler character than those which may become necessary in the higher courts.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Admissibility of statements produced by computers used for purposes of any regular activities.]:
7.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (4)(d), to leave out from "contents" to the end of the paragraph, and insert:
"may, subject to disclosure in any certificate made under subsection (3)(b) above or in evidence of the respect in which the computer was not operating properly or was out of operation, be disregarded."
The noble Viscount said: This is the clause in the Bill which deals primarily with the computers to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just referred. I was most interested to hear what he said about rules about computers being made for magistrates' courts. But I do not want to pursue that point at this moment. I should like to deal with the matter on a rather more general basis.
The subject matter of this Amendment relates to one of the prerequisites in Clause 5(1) which has to be shown before the product, the print-out of the computer, may be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein. It has to be shown that at the time when the document was produced—for this purpose, as I understand it, the document is either a print-out or a transcript of what comes out of the computer for the purpose of the specific case—the computer was operating properly; and then, in order to avoid a great deal of wasted time on the part of the people who run computers, in large companies or indeed in computer bureaux, there is a provision in subsection (3)(b) whereby the fact that the computer was operating properly can be given by certificate. That certificate is, I think, open to challenge, but in the first place it can be given by certificate.
Then in subsection (4)(d) there is the provision which says that if the computer was not operating properly, or was out of operation in any respect which did not affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents, that fact would be disregarded. The effect of this, as I understand it, is that the person who gives the certificate has only to say, "The computer was operating properly". He has not to give any notice at all of any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation if he
642
thinks that this did not affect the accuracy of the product. The question of whether it did or did not affect the accuracy of the product is a matter which may be extremely relevant.
I know but little of the computer world, but from such little knowledge as I have gathered I understand that there is all the time a search going on for new methods of making computers securely accurate. All sorts of counter checks are built into the electronic process itself. They take different forms, and no doubt there are sometimes more than one in a given machine. But I should have thought that it is perfectly possible that the view of the computer operator would be wrong that the thing which had gone wrong with his computer at the relevant time was not such as to affect its accuracy. It would be highly relevant to the person against whom this evidence was being used to have the opportunity to discover that there was something wrong with the computer at the time and to check whether this affected the, accuracy of the information produced by it.
I suggest therefore that, instead of giving the discretion to the operator of the computer when he produces his certificate, whereby if he thinks it right he can completely withhold the information that there was something wrong with the computer from the adverse pasty, he should have to show that there way something wrong and explain what was wrong. It may be that this will be accepted by the adverse party and that nothing more will be made of it, but it will put the adverse party on notice that there is a possible cause of inaccuracy.
I appreciate that the last thing we want to do in considering the admissibility of computerised evidence in civil proceedings is to make it too difficult to bring it in at all. This point was made by the noble and learned Lord on Second Reading. These are bound to be complicated machines, and I do not suppose they will get any simpler. If we are going to have a prerequisite of this sort, we must be careful to consider whether, while at the same time making it a proper prerequisite, we can give the other side the due opportunity it should have to check whether the prerequisite is fulfilled or not. I do not believe that this is necessarily the right way of drafting the matter, but I wish to draw attention

643
to the position to see whether the noble and learned Lord might not feel that something could be done about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out from ("contents") to end of line 20, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Viscount has said seems in principle to be right. His purpose, as I understand it, is to ensure that, if the computer has been defective, the party's opponent is made aware of it so as to be able to use that knowledge in appropriate circumstances to dispute the reliability of the record. I do not want to repeat what the noble Viscount said; it seems to me to be right in principle. He went on to say that the drafting may not be perfect; that also has been suggested to me. But if the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment, I undertake to prepare what I hope will be an improved draft and to put it down on Report.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I gladly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "section" and insert "Part of this Act". The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to take with Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 3 is a paving Amendment for No. 6, although No. 6 is related to a different clause.
I would ask the Committee to look at Clause 8(1) and to compare it with Clause 5(1). Before I get on to the question of discovery, I feel that there is a possibility of difficulty arising in the process of rule-making under this Bill. The admissibility of computerised evidence is said in Clause 5(1) to be governed by rule-making powers of the court. It
"shall, subject to rules of court, be admissible …".
That is a completely general statement and it would not tie down the rule-makers in any way if they thought that they had to bring out new rules to cope with a new situation brought about by a
644
technological advance, or if they had got it wrong in the first place. But then it would be seen that in the extremely important provisions of Clause 8, although it is true that in subsection (3)(c) there is provision for differentiation in these rules to meet different circumstances, nevertheless Clause 5 of the Bill is in principle governed by the provisions in Clause 8, since it says so in Clause 8(1). Therefore, when one is looking at the whole of the computer department of this Bill separately from the other and perhaps slightly less difficult aspects of it, one wonders whether there might not be provisions in Clause 8 which will tie the hands of the rule-making body in a way in which they would not be tied if all references to Clause 5 and computers was left out of the subsequent clauses which provide for rule-making powers and if rule-making authorities were left to themselves to construct their rules with a free hand in Clause 5 itself. I think that this is a point well worth considering.
The point in Amendment No. 6 arises out of the special difficulties which I envisage will turn up in the realms of computers. I do not suppose that rule-making powers, discovery and inspection of documents, is strictly in order on this Bill, but it may be convenient to deal with that. Order 24, Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, says:
"A party which has served a list of documents on any other party must allow the other party to inspect the documents referred to in the list and to have copies thereof."
Suppose that the only information available in the plaintiff's case is contained in a computer. It may well be that the complete print-out of the computer has not been made, or on the contrary it may be that a complete print-out has been made but contains a good deal of material which is not relevant to the case. It may also be that the form in which the material is available is not understandable to the adverse party without the plaintiff or his experts translating it into some sort of English, since the material might consist of magnetic tapes, films, or something of that nature. I feel that the rule of the Supreme Court is not altogether apt in its present form to deal with computers.
Then there is another point in Rule 14, Order 24 which is even worse. It deals

645
with the production of business books, which is directly relevant to the question of computers. It provides that the business books may, instead of being brought in their original form, be dealt with by means of a copy of the entries to be supplied, which may be verified by an affidavit by some person who has examined the copy with the original books. Then sub-rule 2 says:
"Any such affidavit shall state whether or not there are in the original books any and what erasures, interlineations or alterations".
That is not the way in which computers work. Many computers start off with a basic piece of information—for instance, how much I owe to a large shop. Every time I do another transaction with the shop, they erase completely from the tape the previous entry and the computer replaces that by another one showing the up-to-date information. I am told that they by no means always get it right, but that is perhaps beside the point. There really is no provision whatever in the computer world for looking at the business book to see whether there have been any erasures, interlineations or alterations, because a computer is so devised that it automatically disposes of any such thing.
Now how, in the course of the conduct of a case, is one to be able to go behind the product of the computer as it finally emerges after a number of transactions have been considered and dealt with by it, and when the previous situation before any of these transactions took place has been altogether erased? Will there be the coding and the programing which was fed into the computer, as well as the initial entries, perhaps in card form or something of that nature, available? I think not, because I imagine that in a large number of cases, if you are going to have a computer at all the whole object will be to get rid of all that paper—indeed, there may never be any at all. It may be done automatically by the computer, simply by sending it a message along a wire, and there may never be any pieces of paper at all.
How are we going to be able to deal with this aspect of computerised evidence? I frankly have no idea, but I believe it is a matter of the greatest importance when one is considering the
646
admissibility of that final bill which the computer producers and says is what I had in the shop. How am I to go behind it and see how it was made up, and check whether or not the computer has put it down right? It will be interesting if the noble and learned Lord can give us some views, even if they are only provisional ones, first of all on whether the existing rule-making powers are wide enough to deal with this subject at all; and, secondly, and perhaps much more important, if we are going to have computer evidence admissible at all under this Bill, on how he actually thinks some of those difficulties are going to be overcome. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I cannot be equally accommodating about this Amendment. Of course, the rule-making powers are of the widest possible description and, obviously, rules will have to be made. But this is not a Bill dealing with matters of practice and procedure in the Supreme Court; it is strictly a Bill dealing with the admissibility of evidence. The two difficulties which I feel about the noble Viscount's proposal are, first, that it would be going beyond the normal functions of discovery to require a party who has in his possession information which is not readily intelligible on which he does not himself seek to rely, to do more than make it available as it stands to his opponent. Where, for example, you have in your possession a document in a foreign language you must disclose the document, but you are under no obligation at all, if your opponent does not speak that foreign language, to translate it for him. The party disclosing it cannot be compelled under the existing rules to furnish such things.
Secondly, the compulsory disclosure of such devices as magnetic tapes or discs would raise considerable problems, because it would be impossible, in the absence of a transcript, to ascertain what parts were relevant, and "blanket disclosure" might mean that the party was compelled to disclose all sorts of matters which, had they been contained in written documents, he could have covered up

647
I appreciate that modern methods of recording information may in due course require the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court to consider whether the current rules of discovery need amendment. These rules operate on "documents" which are not defined in the rules, but are generally construed as meaning writings, pictures or plans readily intelligible by sight.
It is understood that the rule has been used to compel disclosure of a tape recording, though whether or not that was right is not for me to say. But whether the rule should be extended to cover, with suitable safeguards, magnetic tapes and so on, is a matter which the Rule Committee will no doubt have to consider. But the Amendments are, I submit, unnecessary for this purpose, since the rule-making power under the Act is already wide enough. Finally, it is relevant that Part I of the Bill is not concerned with discovery but with the admissibility of evidence. The Amendments would introduce matters which are, to a large extent, really outside the scope of the Bill. It is for those reasons that I advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment, though I hope the noble Viscount may be prepared to withdraw it.
LORD AIREDALE: I feel that we ought to be a little careful here. We are treading upon new ground. I cannot feel that the analogy with foreign languages, which was put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, is a very happy one. After all, with almost any foreign language that one can think of there are people available to translate it into English, but I rather doubt whether, at any rate so far, computer language—that is to say, the form in which information is fed into a computer and the form in which it comes out of a computer—is necessarily intelligible to anybody except the person who operates that particular computer.
I think it would be very unfair to produce a sheet of gibberish to the lay mind and to say, "That was what was fed in and here is the sheet of gibberish that came out. You must work out for yourself what it means." It might be quite impossible for the other party to work out what it means. It might be possible only if the party operating the computer himself produced a translation.
648
Therefore I feel that we have to be careful here and that the foreign language analogy is not quite fair.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am not very happy about this, I am afraid, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for supporting me. I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord says about the subject-matter of the discovery and inspection being a little outside the terms of the Bill, but the way I put it is this: if you are going to say that in certain circumstances the printout of a computer is to be admissible as evidence, what you are doing, and very rightly, is saying that modern methods of business accounting and business bookkeeping are to be able to be used in the courts, because that is the way that a great many people are going to keep their records. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who drew attention in the Second Reading debate to the fact that an increasing number of business concerns are going to have nothing but computerised records. That is going to be a growing fashion and no doubt an extremely efficient way of doing business.
In an ordinary action, where book-keeping is done in a ledger or in any other form which can be read, there is the possibility that you will be able to look at the entries which were made and upon which the case is being rested by the other side. But if there is nothing in the way of records except a computer, how on earth will you ever be able to challenge the final output, the figure that it produces or whatever it may be, in a complicated case, unless we think about the methods by which discovery and inspection are to be achieved? I think—and I do not know what the Committee thinks about this—that before we allow the print-out of the computer to be admissible at all, we ought to examine the other parts of the processes of law, to see whether or not there will be insuperable difficulties if we prima facie allow the computerised evidence to come in.
It is in that context that I am asking the noble and learned Lord to be a little more forthcoming. He said, and I quite appreciate this and I think it is exceedingly important, that if you allow discovery to go too far the adverse party is going to find out a great deal more than he ought to. Of course, that is a

649
grave danger and it ought to be provided against. It ought to be thought about at this stage, when we are dealing with Clause 5 of this Bill. We ought not to say, "This is something which will have to be dealt with in due course by some rule-making committee when the problem crops up." I do not believe that that is right. I believe we ought to deal with the matter now.
The other point which the noble and learned Lord made was this. Why should the person who has the computer have to provide a transcribed copy of its contents? You do not have to do so if the document is written in a foreign language. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, produced a very good answer to that point. The product of that computer has emerged only because it was the result of information fed in in a particular form. You cannot work a computer unless you have a coding system and a program—which, incidentally, is spelt with only one "m", I believe. You cannot work it without that, and the result of the computer is wholly meaningless unless you know what those initial stages of the process were.
Now, even if the document, in the form of a tape or a pile of punch cards, is going to be given to the other side as such, the other side cannot possibly turn that into a transcript unless they go back to the party whose computer originally produced it, or into whose computer it was fed, because it will have to be checked back with that other party. Where is the saving of cost in requiring the party who wishes to look at this computer to beaver away with his own experts when he either gets absolutely nowhere or, even if he does get somewhere, he has to take it back to be rechecked by his opponents' experts who know how the computer works in the first place? I should have thought there was everything to be said for making the person who relies on a computer in business recording produce the thing in a form in which it can be understood. He will have to do it anyway in due course, so why not do it in the first place?
I am afraid I am not at all content with the answer the noble and learned Lord gave about this. I hope there will be an opportunity, while this Bill is
650
going through Parliament—and I hope particularly in this House—for a lot more thought to be given to this. There are, it is certainly true, consequential difficulties to admitting computer evidence, but to judge by what the noble and learned Lord said I do not think they have been thought out at all. Would the noble and learned Lord give me an undertaking that rather more study will be given to this sort of aspect? I will certainly withdraw the Amendment if he will say that; but I do think I ought to press him a little on this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate very much this very interesting discussion, but where the noble Viscount will I hope renew the discussion will be at the meetings of the Rule Committee. This Amendment is not one which says, "We must put this in the Bill; we do not want to leave it to the Rule Committee". This Amendment is one which merely provides a power which is already there, for rules of court to be made. The existing power is wide enough to make the rules. I could understand that there might be some argument for saying that this should be in the Bill, although I should not agree with that myself for two reasons: first, because it would really be outside the scope of the Bill—discovery rather than admissibility of evidence; and secondly because this is something new; it is developing. If we get a rule wrong, we can put it right. That is very much easier than if we put something into an Act of Parliament and then want to alter it.
But in any case the noble Viscount is not suggesting that we should put it into the Bill, but in the rules. I agree that it does want a great deal of thinking about before rules of court are made. I quite agree with that. If a million facts are stored in a computer, which may very well be the case, and you do not know until you have the whole thing recorded whether or not there is anything relevant to an issue in an action, it would really be an intolerable burden to have it all recorded in a form that people could read, because the amount of records which can be got out of a computer is extraordinary. There can very well be stored in a computer all the sentences of all the courts in all the criminal cases for a year. We have in fact had this done in relation to all the magistrates'

651
courts in the case of the six simplest kinds of driving offences, and the sheets and sheets of paper are of terrific quantity. Nobody knows until the right button is pressed what is going to come out. I quite agree that in both ways there are difficulties to be considered, and I very much hope that the noble Viscount may be able to attend the meetings of the Rule Committee when they consider these very important questions.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble and learned Lord flatters me too much. I know far too little about computers to be able to do this. I make the single point, before I withdraw this Amendment, that this Bill will become an Act, and it will say, "Computerised evidence is admissible". Simultaneously with that, there must be adequate rules to deal with that situation. It may be that they have not been worked out now, but we must have an undertaking I think—and I know this Bill can be brought into force in different bits—that before this bit comes into force there will be rules covering the sort of things (I know they are terribly difficult) that both the noble and learned Lord and I have been talking about. I am sure this will be so, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD WILBERFORCE: I should like, if I might, to make a few observations on this very important clause, not in relation to any particular suggested change, but perhaps in relation to its place in the Bill. The first point I should like to make is similar to that which I made in relation to Clause 1, which is that it is a very complicated clause. It certainly enables computer evidence to be brought in, but it hedges it around with a very elaborate procedure. Three conditions in subsection (2) have to be complied with. It is necessary to produce a certificate in accordance with subsection (3); and then there may be rules—there no doubt will be—which will introduce other complications and which may involve the attendance or the potential attendance of persons concerned with the making, recording or production of statements, as suggested in Clause 8(2)(a).
652
The point is this. This may be inevitable at the present stage, which is rather experimental, but personally I should very much hope that the stage would come, and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might perhaps indicate that he would not resist the stage coming, when some much simpler version of this procedure might be acceptable. In the United States, and I think also in other places where computer evidence is used, it is a matter of routine. There is a simple provision saying that evidence derived from computers may be received in the same way as business records, very much in the same way as in this Bill—in Clause 4 and other parts of it—it is being made much easier simply to produce a business record as such and to leave it at that, subject always, of course, to its being challenged and subject to the supervision of the judge. So I would hope that, before long, once this has got going and is understood, we should be able to substitute a much simpler provision, simply saying that evidence derived directly or indirectly from computers in the form of information should be acceptable in the courts. That is the first point.
The second point which I should like to raise on this clause relates to the definition of "computer", on which I have had some very helpful correspondence with the Department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should be very grateful if he would perhaps indicate that he still considers that the existing definition is satisfactory. It is in Clause 5(5). The point on which I still feel a little doubt is whether the expression "for storing and processing information" is right, because according to advice I have received the important character and feature of these devices lies more in the processing than in the storing. Indeed, one is often told that one should not refer to computers at all, although it is a convenient and popular expression; that if one wants to be accurate one should refer to "data processing devices" rather than to "computer devices".
A great many business firms, as I understand it, use a computer or a data processing machine simply for processing. One has files or cards, and the device takes the files, goes through them, works upon the information in them, and produces a result—sometimes erasing, as the

653
noble Viscount said, what is actually in the files. But the point is that no separate process of storing is carried out. I should like reassurance, if that is possible, that this expression "storing and processing" does not introduce a superfluous element into the definition.
The third point—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord can give us information about this; I regret that I have not given him notice of the point, and he may wish to consider it, but it would seem to be of some importance—is whether Clause 5 applies to foreign computers, or computers outside this country. If one looks at Clause 20 of the Bill, it is said that this Bill is not to extend to Scotland or to Northern Ireland, and there are reasons given for that. One would think it certainly desirable that, as regards proceedings in English courts, it should be possible for businesses in Scotland to provide evidence through a computer. I should think that was desirable also in relation to American businesses or Continental businesses. But whether that is possible under this clause, I confess I do not know. If it is, it may be that some special provision may have to be made when it comes to making the rules of court for giving effect to it. But it would seem to be necessary to be clear one way or the other whether this is limited to the device in this country or whether it would apply to devices wherever they come from. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give us any information on that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the first point, I would entirely agree that the simpler the thing the better it is. It is a little more complicated than perhaps I should have liked. We shall have, I suppose, to try it and see. This is one of the reasons why I am against trying to deal with matters of discovery in the Bill. It is our habit in matters of procedure to be pragmatic. We try something; and we see how it actually works.
With regard to foreign computers, I do not think there is anything in the Bill which makes it inapplicable to a foreign computer; but I have not had occasion to consider that before, and if I may I will. As to storing and processing, I am informed that the difficulty is that if you say "storing" this would apply to every file, and if you say "processing" it
654
would include typewriters. You would then have a clause which would apply to a great many things which are not computers at all. I will look into the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, as to a computer which takes a file and extracts information from it. I will certainly consider this point again. As I am at present advised, the difficulty about saying "storing or processing" is that you would have a section in an Act which applies to a good many things which are not computers at all.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Rules of Court
8.—
(2) Rules of court made in pursuance of subsection (1) above shall in particular, subject to such exceptions (if any) as may be provided for in the rules—
(a) require a party to any civil proceedings who desires to give in evidence any such statement as is mentioned in that subsection to give to every other party to the proceedings such notice of his desire to do so and such particulars of or relating to the statement as may be specified in the rules, including particulars of any person who was in any manner so specified connected with the making, recording or production of the statement; and
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (2)(a), "or with the processing of the information upon which the statement is based". The noble Viscount said: I am not surprised that, in the course of dealing with my points on discovery, the noble and learned Lord (as indeed I did myself) forgot the general point that I was making about the double rule making powers under Clauses 5 and 8. But the matter turns up again in relation to this Amendment. I can see that if you look at Clause 8(2),(a) and try to envisage what is the proper notice, and later counter-notice, procedure to make, if you leave out computers altogether you have here a very reasonable statement of principles on which the rules ought to go. But the moment that you complicate the matter by including within this subsection, and within the general principle on which the rule-making body has to go, the whole concept of the notice system for hearsay consisting of computerised

655
evidence, I think there is room for doubt whether the paragraph is drawn widely enough.
What is being done here is to say that rules of court shall be made to require a party who wants to give his hearsay evidence to give notice to the other side and to give certain particulars. Those particulars are to be specified and they can include particulars of any person who was, in any matter specified in the rules, connected with the making, recording or production of the statement. The statement, if we are dealing with a computer case, going back to Clause 5(1), is contained in a document. Then if we look at Clause 10, the document is the printout of the computer. So we have here somebody who is involved in the making, the recording or the production of the final statement.
In the case of computerised evidence I do not think that goes far enough. The noble and learned Lord himself said yesterday, when he was dealing with computers in an entirely different field, where they were identifying objects in space, that he would not like to guarantee that they were always infallible. Well, they are not. There are at least two sources of fallibility in computers, one of them being a matter of mechanical error and the other a matter of human error. If you wish to pin-point the mechanical error, you may have to do it in the way that we have already discussed. If you wish to deal with the human error, then there is not only the person in charge of the machine—I suppose he would be the proper person of whom notice would be given in accordance with this paragraph—at the time that the document which is actually going to be used in the court is produced; it is also very relevant to know what his predecessor did; because the man in charge of the computer when it actually produces the evidence may have been there for only two days. It may be that for the whole of the time when the information was being fed into the computer which built up the statement that is finally taken out, the computer was in the charge of somebody else. It is that other person who is going to know whether somebody has come down and fed some bogus programme into the computer or has fiddled about with it so as to falsify it.
If you draw the rules in accordance with this paragraph, it may be—and I want to protect this situation—that they will not be wide enough for the rule-making body to ensure that when a person puts forward his computerised evidence he also gives notice of, at any rate, a reasonable selection of the people who have been in charge of the computer during the whole of the relevant period—not just at the time when the document came out, but during all the previous period. They may not have to be called, but it is important that the person who is to cross-examine on this evidence should be able to have the opportunity to check back on its accuracy. As I said on Second Reading, he cannot call a witness and cross-examine him, even if he finds out who was the previous person in charge of the computer. He can subpoena him; but then he is his own witness, and he cannot cross-examine him unless he gets a ruling that the man is hostile.
What is required here is sufficient breadth—I do not think it need be spelled out in the Bill; I am sure that we shall be empirical about it—in the rule-making provisions to enable the rules to cover the sort of thing that I have been talking about. There are two ways of doing it: either to make sure by broadening this paragraph or—and this may be better—leave out the reference to Clause 5 in Clause 8 and in Clause 6, and leave the thing to be done by special computer rules made under Clause 5. At any rate, I believe that there is here a practical problem to be dealt with. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 44, after ("statement") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD AIREDALE: I support this Amendment. Surely the difficulty that one is up against with computers is that if you ask a computer a silly question you get a silly answer, but you may not know it. If you have an intelligent witness in the witness box and you ask a silly question, his answer will probably show up the silliness of the question. It is very important, therefore, when you are working with computers, to be quite sure that the person feeding the information into the computer was not subject at that moment to some human failing which will

657
lead the computer to produce an inaccurate answer which nobody is going to be able easily to discover—because there is no apparent different in the behaviour of a computer when it produces a stupid answer from when it produces a sensible one. That seems to me of importance here. It is very important indeed not only to know as is stated in Clause 5(1)(a), that the computer was operated properly at the time, but to know that the person who fed information into it was operating properly at the time. That is what I think we have to guard against and why it is important to know about the people who fed the information in and who were operating the computer before the information eventually emerged.
7.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no real objection to this in principle. I am still a little hesitant about making things too complicated, and with reference to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I think that we ought to remember two things. One is, as I understand, that it is infinitely more difficult to forge a computer record than any ordinary ledger because there has to be several people in it at the same time. Secondly, while, of course, computers can make mistakes, business firms do not spend tens or hundreds of thousands on a machine which is not accurate; therefore there is much less reason why they should be. It is only that we are new to computers and they all sound frightfully complicated, as indeed they may be. No doubt when a firm gets its first computer something may well go wrong, but in general it is much less culpable and there is much less need to check a computer than almost any other form of record.
But I agree with the general proposition that the people responsible for translating the original information into computer language ought to be included. It is, however, for consideration whether Clause 8(2)(a) as drafted does not meet the point made by the noble Viscount, because "production of the statement" is a phrase wide enough to cover everything from the initial supplying of the information to the final print-out. I would invite the noble Viscount to consider that, and to withdraw his Amendment on the undertaking that we can both consider whether any express additional
658
words are needed. If they are, then an Amendment, either in this form or some modified form, can be put down again on Report stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Would the noble and learned Lord also like to deal with my point about taking out altogether from Clauses 6 and 8 the references to Clause 5, and leaving it for general powers to make rules under Clause 5 itself?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Could I consider that at the same time?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I entirely agree with that approach. I should like to consider it too, but I think that what I am asking for is reasonable. I am not asking for any complication; I specifically do not want that. All I am asking is that the rule-making powers should not be so restricted by some words which unfortunately do not wholly apply to computer worlds that we shall find that we cannot cover it without amending legislation. I am only asking that that situation should be safeguarded. If the noble and learned Lord will look at it in that way, I will gladly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2)(b), to leave out "cannot reasonably" and insert "is shown not to be able reasonably to be". The noble Viscount said: This is a similar point. I know very well that the words in paragraph (b) are taken out of, I think, the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 and that they were put in because of difficulties which arose in a case called Meyers v. The Director of Public Prosecutions. But again I am dubious whether they are altogether right in the very special context of computers. This is another instance where it may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will find it is better to have a special computer rule-making clause all by itself, and leave the ordinary situations with which this Bill deals to be governed by the same rules as appear in the 1965 Act. It is for consideration.
The difficulty, I think, is this: in this very special computer context all that the person who does not wish to have his computer manager appear at the court has to say is, "This was one of an

659
enormous number of very small transactions which either are done as a matter of course and routine, and nobody could be expected to remember them at all, or else there is nobody who does them at all; the whole thing is completely automatic; and I have nobody in my employ who will be able to help you about the process whereby a particular entry in which you are interested got into the computer's information system".
I can easily imagine that this would in fact be so. But what one is going to ask for, I suspect, if one wishes to challenge the accuracy of the computer print-out, is not necessarily for somebody who has a specific memory of a specific punch card that was put into it some day eighteen months or seven years before the case, but somebody who was in charge of the operation of the computer, as the noble and learned Lord himself said, at the relevant period. It is the method by which the programing and the coding is done and the information fed into the machine which is relevant here, just as much as an exact memory of the specific occasion upon which the data accrued or when it was actually registered in the inside of the computer. Therefore I do not think that the exact wording of the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 is apt for this special context.
If the other party, the computerised party, wishes to be difficult, or wishes actually to suppress the fact that there has been something wrong in the operation of his computer, he can perfectly well say under this formula, "Yes, I have a manager, he was there at the time, but there is no reason to suppose that he can remember anything about this particular transaction". And who is going to be able to disprove it? The whole system of this paragraph, so far as I can see, makes this counter-notice more or less conclusive. What I am asking for, at any rate in this sort of case, is that the person should be produced unless it can be shown by the person who wishes not to produce him that there is some reason why he should not come. I do not know whether that is the right way to do it; it may be better to have a special rule for computers; but at any rate I think it is another point for consideration, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("cannot reasonably") and insert ("is shown not to be able reasonably to be").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought that this Amendment was unnecessary, because the wording of Clause 8(2)(b) is unambiguous as it stands. It follows exactly the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 and it already places the burden on the party who wishes to show that the witness either is unavailable or cannot be expected to remember the relevant events. If it is desired to insist at the interlocutory stage on evidence being given to show that the person concerned cannot reasonably be expected to remember the relevant facts, Clause 8(2)(b) as drafted would enable rules to be made for this purpose.
VISOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, and I think that may well be so, but I am saying that the test is wrong. The proper test in this case is not just that a person should not reasonably be expected to remember facts; he should be, and may properly be, expected to remember the situation or the general orders which he was given. He may not remember the facts, but it may be highly relevant that he should remember the exact situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel that we are making it ever more and more complicated. I am quite prepared to consider this point, but I should not have thought that on the wording of Clause 8(2)(b) as it stands any Amendment was really necessary.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take this point into account when he does what he says and considers whether we should take computers out of Clause 8 altogether. Perhaps when the noble and learned Lord reads what I have said it may occur to him that I am not just splitting a hair about this matter and that there is a certain amount of substance in what I am saying: that this is not the right test when it comes to people remembering about computers. If that is so, something may have been gained. I hope that I may leave it to the noble

661
and learned Lord at the moment to consider, and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw—
LORD AIREDALE: Before the noble Viscount moves to withdraw the Amendment, may I suggest that the sort of question you want to ask a person feeding information into the computer is, "When you fed the information in, did you remember that the year 1956 was a leap year?", because if that is forgotten, every single one of the computer's calculations for 1956 will be wrong. That is the sort of thing we want the witness to be sure of when he is asked whether he fed proper information into the machine.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that if he did that, he would not be there any longer.
LORD AIREDALE: This is a case that happened. Someone forgot that a certain year was a leap year and the whole of the calculations were completely wrong.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: Am I right in saying that an answer may be extremely accurate but at the same time may be misleading and silly even, unless the question is explained to the computer? To take an example, if there was a question of the number of white men, it would have to be explained to the computer that a "white man" does not mean a white man. A computer to which it had not been explained that it meant pinkish-brown, would give an extremely inaccurate answer. It may be a frivolous example, but it is one somebody might be more likely to overlook. It must be very complicated.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that, nevertheless, I will beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Admissibility of certain hearsay evidence formerly admissible at common law]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the omission of Clause 1(2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("it") in line 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Interpretation of Part I, and application to arbitrations, etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may I will discuss this Amendment and Nos. 9 and 12, which go together. The purpose of these three Amendments is to make the wording of paragraph (d), and of references to that paragraph elsewhere in the subsection, reflect more clearly the fact that paragraph (d) covers not only cinematograph films and videotapes but also microfilms and other "still" negatives. The first Amendment makes it clear that paragraph (d), as distinct from (b), is not concerned with photographic prints, which are intended to be looked at in their existing form, but with devices from which readily intelligible pictures can be reproduced. The two linked Amendments reflect the fact that a "paragraph (d) document" may embody either a single visual image (that is to say, a microfilm or other "still" negative) or several such images (that is to say, a cinematograph film of videotape). Hence, the first of these Amendments makes paragraph (d) refer to a device embodying "one or more" visual images, and the second Amendment makes the definition of a copy of such a document include a "reproduction or still reproduction", since "still reproduction" is not a felicitous phrase when one wants to refer to a print of a microfilm or other "still" negative. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 11, after ("film") insert (", negative").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This is one of the Amendments the noble and learned Lord promised to make to Clause 10. I should not be greatly surprised if other Amendments to this extremely difficult definition were to turn up in the course of the passage of the Bill through Parliament. I am sure that this is a good series, and I welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, the second of those to which I have just referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 11, after ("which") insert ("one or more").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is linked with the Amendment to Clause 10, page 11, line 18, "leave out ('only') and insert ('but not (c)')". These Amendments cure a minor drafting defect in Clause 10(1), which results from the definition of "copy" being made dependent, in appropriate cases, on whether the relevant document falls within paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of the definition of "document". These definitions are intended to deal separately with first, "audible" documents, of which transcripts of the sounds are copies; secondly, films and video-tapes, of which still prints are copies; and, thirdly, combined films, etc., and sound tracks, of which transcripts together with still prints are copies. It is, however, possible that a document which fell within paragraph (d) might also fall within paragraph (b) (photographs); a reproduction of the image embodied in such a document ought to be a "copy" and it is therefore more accurate to speak of such a document as "falling within paragraph (d) but not (c)" rather than as "falling within paragraph (d) only". The second of these two Amendments does this and, for the sake of consistency, the first Amendment makes a corresponding change in the definition of copies of "audible" documents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 16, leave out ("only") and insert ("but not (d)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the second of the two Amendments to which I have just referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("only") and insert ("but not (c)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This follows on Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("still reproduction of the") and insert ("reproduction or still reproduction of the image or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1)(d), after "not" to insert "or, if the image or images can be interpreted only when reduced into words or figures, a transcript thereof". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment relates to a point I raised on Second Reading. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote to me about it, he said, not altogether surprisingly, that he was not sure what I had been talking about, and I am not sure that I know now. But still I wish to ask him a question.
I believe that there is a method of computerisation which is called electronic beam recording. I have not had an opportunity to find out exactly what it does. It may be that this succeeds in reproducing upon a microfilm an exact reproduction of a document, so that when the relevant pieces of the microfilm are reproduced the document can be read. On the other hand, it may be that what it does is to break down words into some sort of light impulses which are then put upon a film which can eventually be turned back into language. A television cathode ray bombards a screen with a series of dots. It may be that this does the same sort of thing. If it does, the production of a recording is not immediately readable or intelligible when it comes out at the end. Although it is within paragraph (d) and it is one of the visual types, it would not be any use to produce a copy of the microfilm. It would have to be translated back into the sort of language from which the original process had transformed it.
Whether or not I am right in supposing that the latter is what the electronic beam recording does, it seems to me possible that there will be invented during the lifetime of this Bill some process which will use a form of visual image or impact or impression in such a way that we shall not be able to understand it from the film or print of that process alone without further interpretation of the message it is trying to put over; and unless we do something to expand the definition in Clause 10, I believe that we may be left with a case in which some incredibly complicated and efficient new type of computer cannot be used in court because the Civil Evidence Act 1968 does not contain a definition wide enough for it.

665
There are two possibilities here: either it exists now or in the future. In either case, I admit that I have not drafted my Amendment correctly. But, at any rate, I hope that the noble and learned Lord saw before this debate what I was getting at and can give me some sort of answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, after ("not") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gather the sort of thing that the noble and learned Viscount has in mind, and I should really like to consult my experts on electronic beam recording. I think that an Amendment is not really necessary, because it seems to me that the sort of thing that the noble Viscount has in mind would fall within Clause 10(1)(c), not paragraph (d), because the "data" embodied are "non visual": the marks (whether punctured holes or other devices) may be visible, but the "data" are not apparent to the eye. As long as the document is within paragraph (c) a transcript would be within the definition of "copy". I should, however, like to consider it. These are difficult matters. The noble Viscount may like to consider what I have said to see whether it makes sense, and, if I may, I will consider the matter again and take further advice.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The last thing that I should wish to suggest is that anything that the noble and learned Lord says does not make sense. But I did consider this carefully to see whether I thought a machine of the type I am talking about fell within paragraph (c). It is quite true that if you interpret the words "non-visual" in one way it may be so, but I should have thought it much more natural to say that something which appeared as perhaps a row of dots on a microfilm was visual. After all, you see it. It is, as are all the other things in paragraph (d), of the type of film, a microfilm, which is in the visual department of this definition. Although I have no doubt that the courts would manage to worm their way round the difficulty somehow, it seems to me to be so much better not to have litigation about whether this particular type of computer produces a document within Clause 10 of this Bill when it becomes
666
law. It would be much better to try to get a definition a little wider at this stage in order to avoid all that trouble. I am glad the noble and learned Lord will do as he said; I will certainly do the same, and perhaps we can come back to the point on a later occasion. Meanwhile, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection 1(d), after "enlarged or not," to delete "and". The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is a little more complicated. It is a paving Amendment anticipating the Amendment to Clause 10, page 11, line 22. These Amendments make it clear that a party who has microfilmed an original written document can, subject al ways to authentication in a manner approved by the court, prove a statement contained in that document by producing not the microfilm itself but an enlarged reproduction made from it. This is an important point, because one of the main objects of the wide definition of "copy" in Clause 10(1) is to enable free use to be made of microfilm enlargements.
In most cases a microfilm will itself constitute a record within the meaning of Clause 4 and will therefore be admissible under that clause to prove a statement contained in it. It would follow that an enlargement of the microfilm would be a "copy" within Clause 10(1), as now drafted, and therefore admissible by virtue of Clause 6(1) to prove the statement. But this will not always be the case; if the microfilm does not constitute a "record" within Clause 4, then it is doubtful whether Clauses 6(1) and 10(1) would permit a statement contained in the original written document to be proved by the production of an enlargement from the microfilm. It is true that the microfilm itself would be a "copy" of the original written document, but the enlargement would be a copy of a copy of that original and the Bill does not permit proof by production of a copy of a copy. In the case of a microfilm, this would be most inconvenient since the microfilm itself is not easily legible and to require its production would be both tiresome and unhelpful. What is needed is a provision enabling the enlargement to be produced in court.
The Amendments achieve this object. Their effect is that where a document which is not itself a film, et cetera, has been filmed (and this includes microfilmed) then a reproduction, whether enlarged or not, of the images embodied in the film is included in the definition of a "copy" of the original document. I have for some time felt that I should have gone to a computer school for at least a month before introducing this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: If these two Amendments will achieve that object it seems to me to be a work of veritable genius. I do not understand in detail what the noble and learned Lord has said, but I shall be very interested indeed to read it in the morning.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the Amendment that is linked to the last one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, at end insert ("and in the case of a document not falling within the said paragraph (d) of which a visual image is embodied in a document falling within that paragraph, a reproduction of that image, whether enlarged or not.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Convictions as evidence in civil proceedings
11.—(1) In any civil proceedings the fact that a person has been convicted of an offence by or before any court in the United Kingdom or by a court-martial there or elsewhere shall (subject to subsection (3) below) be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving, where to do so is relevant to any issue in those proceedings, that he committed the conduct on which the conviction was based, whether he was so convicted upon a plea of guilty or otherwise and whether or not he is a party to the civil proceedings; but no conviction other than a subsisting one shall be admissible in evidence by virtue of this section.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or by a court-martial there or elsewhere". The noble Viscount said: It may
668
be with a sigh of relief that the Committee can leave the subject of computers and, indeed, Part I of the Bill. I have now set down to Clause 11 and Clause 13 a number of Amendments which are really all on the same point, although I think they have slightly different emphasis in the two different clauses, to draw attention to, and to seek some explanation from the noble and learned Lord about, the other respect in which this Bill differs from the Law Reform Committee's recommendation.
It will be recalled that in paragraph 18 of their Report (Cmnd. 3391) and the rule in Hollington and Hewthorne they recommended—and again it was a matter of balance of judgment—that the provisions about the admissibility of previous convictions should apply when the conviction was before a court, but not when it was before a court-martial or before a foreign court. The Bill, of course, says that if the conviction is subsisting it is admissible. The noble and learned Lord has a little difference, I think, to make now—it is not going to be admissible if the conduct upon which it was based under his Amendments to come are the fact—but I do not think that it makes any appreciable difference for this purpose. It is going to be evidence of those facts in a subsequent civil proceeding. The Committee said that they did not consider that a conviction before a foreign court should be susceptible of this treatment, and that in those circumstances a person who wishes to prove the facts would have to start all over again without being able to rely on foreign conviction.
Then there comes the difficulty of the court-martial, and in this the Government have reversed the balance of judgment to which the Law Reform Committee came. I think that before the Committee is invited to accept this change I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a little about the reasons which underlie the Law Reform Committee's own balanced judgment on the matter. What they said was that they were not imputing anything against courts-martial; they were not saying there was anything wrong with courts-martial. There were two reasons. First of all, courts-martial in this country do not as a rule involve the sort of cases which are liable to lead to a tort or a contract action afterwards; they chiefly deal with military

669
offences in whichever Service they occur. Then they say that when courts-martial take place abroad they are done under English rules of law, but it is perfectly possible that there it will in fact concern a matter and concern facts which could be the subject, possibly, of a future civil action in this country. But they then say that what their draft Bill provides would lay an unreasonable burden upon the defendant.
The defendant would, if the Bill is to apply to courts-martial as well as to convictions in front of an ordinary court in this country, have the burden of disproving the conviction. His opponent would simply have to put up the conviction in front of the court-martial and that would be admissible as evidence of the facts, unless the defendant could prove that that conviction was wrong and the facts did not lead to that conclusion. In order to be able to do so he would very likely have to go abroad and collect a number of witnesses to enable him to discharge that onus of proof. I think it was for that reason, so far as courts-martial abroad are concerned, that the Committee came to the view that it should be for the plaintiff to bring all the evidence he wished to satisfy the court and prove his case, and not for the defendant to show that it did not.
There must have been some consideration in the minds of Her Majesty's Government which led them to abandon this balance of judgment. Perhaps the Law Reform Committee were wrong about the number of offences upon which civil actions could take place which were dealt with by courts-martial in this country. Perhaps they were wrong about the difficulties of obtaining witnesses, but I do not think we should leave this matter as it is.
I wish to say only one other thing. I do not believe that necessarily quite the same considerations apply to the defamation situation dealt with in Clause 13. It seems to me to be possible, although perhaps not very logical, to leave courts-martial out of Clause 11 but still to say that so far as Clause 13 is concerned they will be conclusive. As I understand Clause 13, in any event it will not be possible for the defendant to disprove the conviction, and therefore the practical difficulty about bringing witnesses back
670
from abroad does not arise. But I think that perhaps it would be better to consider the two together rather than separately. I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can deal with the main proposition, and then mention the case of defamation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("or by a court-martial there or elsewhere").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be difficult to split the thing in two. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, is no longer here, because we are dealing with one of the only points on which this Bill differs from the recommendations of his Committee. The only grounds on which the Committee said they came to their conclusion were, first, that in the United Kingdom courts-martial are mainly confined to the trial of offences against military law, which would really involve only the same issues as civil actions; and so far as courts-martial abroad are concerned they were influenced by the practical difficulty confronting a party who wished to challenge a conviction but could only do so if given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence.
No doubt these are weighty arguments, but against them it may be urged, as the Committee themselves recognised, that courts-martial are as reliable as other criminal courts, and in the opinion of many people are even more favourable to the accused—certainly in the facilities for reviewing a court-martial conviction, either on appeal or through Service machinery, because the sentence has to be confirmed and the proceedings reviewed at that point, and then later one can go to the Courts-Martial Appeal Courts.
Secondly, there is an important difference between courts-martial, whether sitting at home or abroad, and foreign courts, in that the former apply English law, and in particular follow the English rules of evidence. Thirdly, I think the Law Reform Committee may well have underestimated the proportion of trials by court-martial in the United Kingdom for what are offences against the ordinary criminal law. Usually, in fact, when some

671
question arises nearly all the witnesses are back in this country, and it is always easy for the Services to bring people home, but the Committee—I hesitate to say this in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson—when they said that there are very few civil cases, they are nearly all criminal cases, I rather believe were thinking of their own experiences.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Surely the noble and learned Lord must mean "military" rather than "general criminal"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I mean that. But it may be the Committee were relying on their own recollection of Service days or of Judge Advocates during the war, because actually last year there were altogether under 3,000 courts-martial, and over 1,100 of them were civil cases.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: But, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, they cannot have been civil cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I do mean civil cases—well, not courts-martial, but for civil offences.
LORD AIREDALE: I think the noble and learned Lord means non-military criminal offences.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. But this is an entirely different picture from that which the Committee had. So, taking all those things into account, we decided in this way—allowing for the fact that the Services made it plain that they regarded it as a great slight on courts-martial that they were treated differently.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, will read what he has said in Hansard and will be able, if he wishes to do so, to comment on it later. Could the Lord Chancellor just tell me this. Has he any sort of breakdown of the nonmilitary criminal offences which were committed and were tried by courts-martial in the list that he has mentioned?
672
I would not have any idea what sort these are—whether they are the sort that would be likely to give rise to civil liability, or whether they would be the sort of non-military criminal offences which do not really affect the issue.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have the breakdown of the figures of the last two years for the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, but I have no list of the actual offences. I have no doubt I could obtain it and I will write to the noble Viscount and let him have that information.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I would be very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, and I should like to study that. Meanwhile, I beg to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "whether he was so convicted upon a plea of guilty or otherwise and," and insert "that offence". The noble and learned Lord said: This is the last really complicated Amendment and it is rather tedious because it is all a question of terminology. One hesitated to differ very much on any point from the clauses put forward by the Committee, but the phrase "committing the conduct" has been found very complicated, and this is an attempt to get rid of it.
Perhaps I may take this Amendment together with Amendments 19 and 20. Their object is twofold. In the first place, they are intended to improve the language of the Bill, first by getting rid of the rather cumbrous expression "committed the conduct" and thus enabling the definition of "conduct" in Clause 18(2) to be omitted; and, secondly, by enabling a latent ambiguity in Clause 12 to be resolved while keeping the language used in Clause 11 in step with that used in Clause 12 as proposed to be amended.
The substance of the Law Reform Committee's recommendation on which Clause 11(1) is based is that proof of a previous conviction should be evidence of the convicted person's guilt. The natural way of giving effect to the recommendation would be to provide that
"the fact that a person has been convicted of an offence .. shall be admissible in evidence

673
for the purpose of proving … that he committed that offence …"—
which is what Clause 11(1) will provide if the Amendment to subsection (1) is made. As drafted, Clause 11(1), following the draft clauses annexed to the Committee's Report, makes the conviction admissible to prove that the person concerned "committed the conduct on which the conviction was based".
The reason for using this expression is that in many cases—for example, "running down actions" following the defendant's conviction of a driving offence—it is the defendant's bad driving that is relevant, not whether it was correctly adjudged by the criminal court to amount to "dangerous" or "careless" driving. The defendant should not be able to avoid the effect of Clause 11 by arguing successfully in the civil action that the magistrates should have convicted him of "careless" and not "dangerous" driving, when the issue in the civil action is whether he was negligent because he drove too fast. The use of "committed the conduct" was intended to avoid this possibility. But in practice it would not exist; if the conviction were, as is proposed, made evidence that the defendant committed the offence of dangerous driving, he would, to displace the evidential effect of the conviction, have to "prove the contrary"—that is, that he was not guilty of dangerous driving—by virtue of Clause 11(2), and this he could in practice do only by calling direct evidence of what happened.
Moreover, as drafted, Clause 11(1) may be difficult to apply where the criminal conviction could have been based on a finding that any one or more of a number of incidents was proved. If, for example, A is convicted of having assaulted B at a given time and place, B may have given evidence that A struck him a number of blows, one of which did serious injury for which a civil action is subsequently brought. A may, in the criminal proceedings, have admitted striking B but deny having struck the blow which did the injury. In such a situation, unless the criminal court's decision clearly shows precisely what the court found proved, it may be difficult to show precisely what aspect of A's conduct was the basis of the conviction. To provide, therefore, that the conviction is to be evidence that A "commited the conduct on which it
674
was based" may be asking Clause 11(1) to do more than it can reasonably be expected to do.
Accordingly, even if Clause 11 is considered by itself, there are persuasive arguments for abandoning "committed the conduct on which the conviction was based" in favour of "committed that offence". But the same arguments are still more powerful when applied to the analogous provisions in Clause 12. There a finding of adultery or an adjudication of paternity is made evidence that the person concerned "committed the conduct on which the finding or adjudication was based". So long as the subsequent proceedings are concerned only with proof of an act of adultery, this expression (though not very elegant) achieves its purpose. But it is not at all clear that it makes an adjudication of paternity evidence of the fact of paternity, and this ambiguity is brought out in Clause 12(2)(b), which makes certain documents admissible to identify the "conduct on which the finding or adjudication was based". One cannot identify an act of paternity. It is therefore in any event desirable to amend Clause 12 to resolve this ambiguity by providing in terms that a finding of adultery or adjudication of paternity is to be admissible as evidence that the person concerned committed the adultery to which the finding relates or was the father of the child in question. This is done by the Amendments to Clause 12. "Committed the conduct" cannot be retained for Clause 12, and this fact strengthens the argument for substituting a more readily understood and less cumbersome expression in Clause 11.
A further advantage of the Amendments is that they enable the definition of "conduct" in Clause 18(2) to be omitted. The object of this definition was to avoid any possibility of "conduct" being construed as excluding any relevant mental element in relation to a criminal offence. If Clause 11(1) is, as is proposed, to refer to the commission of an offence, it will necessarily connote the relevant mental element. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, leave out from ("committed") to ("whether'') in line 10 and insert ("that offence").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think it is very valuable to have a full

675
explanation of the reasons why the Government wish in this respect to depart from the drafting of the Committee's little Bill at the back of their Report. I find the argument wholly convincing. It is much more subtle than anything I should have thought of, but it sounds to me right and I would support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on No. 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 18, leave out from ("committed") to end of line 19 and insert ("that offence unless")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is also consequential on No. 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("conduct") and insert ("facts").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There are a number of Amendments which the noble and learned Lord has on this point. I recognise them as all being the same. I do not know whether it would be permissible to put them en bloc.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Those were the ones, Nos. 17, 19 and 20.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after subsection (3), to insert:
"(3A) Where in any civil proceedings the contents of any document are admissible in evidence by virtue of subsection (2) above, a copy of that document, or of the material part thereof, purporting to be certified or otherwise authenticated by or on behalf of the court or authority having custody of that document shall be admissible in evidence and shall be taken to be a true copy of that document or part unless the contrary is shown."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment enables a properly authenticated copy of a complaint, information, and so on, to be put in evidence for the purpose of identifying the facts on which a criminal conviction was based. The Amendment is necessary because without it it might be difficult for a party seeking to rely on a previous conviction to
676
identify the relevant facts. Proof of the conviction itself presents no difficulty, because under current legislation a conviction before a court in any part of the United Kingdom can be proved by a certificate signed by the appropriate officer of the court. But the relevant enactments do not apply to the documents which initiate criminal proceedings, and to obtain the originals might be inconvenient or even impossible. A criminal court might well be unwilling to release its original records, particularly for the purpose of a civil action in another part of the United Kingdom, but there can be no objection to a properly authenticated copy being made available and admitted in evidence. The wording of the Amendment is based on paragraphs 12 and 13 of Schedule 1 to the Land Commission Act 1967. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Findings of adultery and paternity as evidence in civil proceedings.
12.—
(2) In any civil proceedings in which by virtue of this section a person is proved to have been found guilty of adultery as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above or to have been adjudged to be the father of a child as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above—

(a) he shall be taken to have committed the conduct on which the finding or adjudication was based, except in so far as the contrary is proved; and

(b) without prejudice to the reception of any other admissible evidence for the purpose of identifying the conduct on which the finding or adjudication was based—

(i) in a case falling within subsection (1)(a) above, the contents of the petition or summons presented, and of any decree or order made, in the matrimonial proceedings in question, and the judgment of the court therein, shall be admissible in evidence for that purpose; and

(ii) in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) above, the contents of the complaint, summons or writ and of any order made in the affiliation proceedings in question shall be admissible in evidence for that purpose.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "conduct on which the finding or adjudication was based", and insert:
"adultery to which the finding relates or, as the case may be, is (or was) the father of that child".
The noble and learned Lord said: This drafting Amendment is linked with two other drafting Amendments, Nos. 24 and 25, and it resolves the ambiguity latent in the words "committed the conduct" in Clause 12(1), whose purpose I have explained. Perhaps these Amendments could be put en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 24, leave out from ("the") to ("whether") in line 25, and insert the said new words.
Page 13, line 35, leave out from ("the") to ("the") in line 37, and insert ("adultery to which the finding relates or, as the case may be, to be (or have been) the father of that child, unless").
Page 13, line 40, leave out ("conduct") and insert ("facts")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) to leave out subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and insert:
"the contents of any document which was before the court, or which contains any pronouncement of the court, in the matrimonial or affiliation proceedings in question shall be admissible in evidence for that purpose."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment substitutes, for the specific classes of documents at present set out in Clause 12(2)(b)(i) and (ii), a general formula providing for the documents connected with the previous matrimonial or affiliation proceedings which are to be admissible for the purpose of identifying the facts on which a finding of adultery or adjudication of paternity was made. As drafted, Clause 12(2)(b)(i) and (ii) make admissible for the purpose of identifying the relevant facts—(a) a petition, summons, decree, order or judgment in a matrimonial cause, and (b) a complaint, summons, writ or order in affiliation proceedings. To cover all relevant documents these formulas would anyhow have to be expanded to cover all the "pleadings" and other documents that might go to form part of the court record in English, Scottish or Northern Irish proceedings. Although it would no doubt be possible to make a complete and exhaustive list
678
of all such documents currently in use, this would not be convenient and would not cater for future procedural changes whereby some entirely new type of document came to be used.
The formula in the Amendment is comprehensive and is intended to avoid these possible inconveniences. It makes admissible any document which was as before the court and any document containing a "pronouncement of the court" this latter phrase is apt to cover both a formal decree or order and a reasoned "judgment" or "opinion"—which is the corresponding Scottish term. The new subsection (3)(a), which is inserted in Clause 12 by the Amendment to Clause 12, will make properly authenticated copies of these documents admissible to prove their contents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 14 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment provides for the use of properly authenticated copies to prove the contents of documents made admissible to identify the facts relevant to a finding of adultery or an adjudication of paternity. The new subsection achieves this in the manner already discussed under Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line II, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (3A) of section 11 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as if the reference to subsection (2) were a reference to subsection (2) of this section.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "in the Court of Session". The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 together. This is where the noble Viscount will have an advantage over me, because I am in the middle of Scots Law, which I know nothing at all about.
These Amendments bring within the definition of "matrimonial proceedings" for the purposes of Clause 12 consistorial actions in the sheriff court as well as in

679
the Court of Session, but exclude from that definition actions in either court for "non-permanent" alimony. The body of the Report of the Law Reform Committee makes no specific references to findings of adultery made in proceedings in Scotland, but it is evident from the draft clauses annexed to the Report that the Committee were in favour of treating such findings, if made in proceedings in the Court of Session, on a par with such findings made in matrimonial causes in the High Court (or in a county court under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1967). The Committee proposed expressly that their recommendations should not apply to findings of adultery made by magistrates' courts in England for the reasons given in paragraph 36 of the Report; namely, that,

(a) in those proceedings an alleged adulterer is not made a party, has no right to take any part and is not always given notice of the complaint, etc., in which adultery is alleged against him; and

(b) unlike the High Court trying matrimonial causes, magistrates' courts are under no duty to enquire into the truth of any allegation made.

The sheriff court in Scotland is not the equivalent of a magistrates' court in England. If a consistorial action (that is, an action affecting the status of parties with regard to marriage) is raised in the sheriff court, and an allegation of adultery is made in that action, the alleged adulterer has a right to be added to the proceedings as a party and to contest the allegation. Sheriff court proceedings are, therefore, more akin to matrimonial proceedings in the High Court than to such proceedings in a magistrates' court in England.
A further factor is that the current Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which I think has just been introduced in another place, contains provisions corresponding to Clauses 11 to 13 of the Bill. The provision (Clause 11) corresponding to Clause 12 does bring in findings of adultery in consistorial actions whether in the Court of Session or the sheriff court, subject to the exceptions specified in the definition of "consistorial action" in Clause 13(2) of the Scottish Bill, which is reproduced in the second of the Amendments to which I am referring. If, therefore, sheriff court proceedings are not included in Clause 12,
680
the law of England will be out of step with the law of Scotland. Although, therefore, it can be argued that sheriff court findings are not altogether the equivalent of findings made by the High Court or the Court of Session, the advantages of bringing them within Clause 12 appear to outweigh the disadvantages. The first Amendment brings them in by omitting the qualification on the meaning of "consistorial action" imposed by the words "in the Court of Session".
However, it would not be appropriate to bring within Clause 12 every kind of action which may be classified as a "consistorial action" (whether in the Court of Session or the sheriff court) and the corresponding provision in the Scottish Bill (Clause 13(2)) expressly excludes, as does the second Amendment with which I am dealing:
"an action of aliment only between husband and wife raised in the Court of Session or an action of interim aliment raised in the sheriff court".
The need for this exclusion stems from the fact that without it "consistorial action" would be capable of including actions for "non-permanent" aliment: the statutory definition in Section 19 of the Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Amendment Act 1861 does include such actions, although they are not within the definition given in Walker's "Evidence", 1964 edition at page 166.
Actions for aliment fall into two classes: first, actions for "permanent" aliment, which are comparable to proceedings for judicial separation and maintenance and involve a preliminary conclusion for separation or adherence; and, secondly, actions for "non-permanent" aliment, which involve no such conclusion because in theory the aliment is granted only pending the determination of the parties' rights. In the latter class, unlike in the former, a decree may be pronounced although the action has not been substantiated by sufficient evidence. These actions proceed as ordinary actions in the Court of Session or, if the proceedings are in the sheriff court, a decree may be granted in an undefended case without any evidence having been led. Thus, a finding of adultery in such actions may not have been established by the same strict standards of proof as are required in a true consistorial action. Such a finding has therefore no

681
special evidential value and should not come within either Clause 12 or the corresponding provision of the Scottish Bill. Accordingly, the second Amendment expressly excludes these actions. I apologise to the Committee for having dealt with this rather fully; but where one is departing in any case at all from a Report of a body like the Law Reform Committee, I think it right that exactly what we have done should be on record. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 15, leave out ("in the Court of Session").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. Any alleged advantage that I may have in this matter is in fact non-existent. But although I am quite unable to comment intelligibly upon these two exclusions, which are highly technical matters, I should have thought it no insult to the magistrates' courts and the procedure which governs them South of the Border to say—this is really the principle of the Amendments—that cases before the sheriff courts, where the adultery is in fact proved in the proper way, with the parties all having the opportunity to be there and to dispute it, should be brought within the scope of this admissible evidence. Therefore, I would support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the other Amendment I was discussing originally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 16, at end add ("and in this subsection 'consistorial action' does not include an action of aliment only between husband and wife raised in the Court of Session or an action of interim aliment raised in the sheriff court.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Conclusions of convictions for purposes of defamation actions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and Amendment No. 31 are again "committing the conduct" Amendments I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 30, leave out ("conduct") and insert ("facts").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The same observation applies to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 32, leave out ("that conduct") and insert ("those facts").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and Amendment No. 35 are drafting Amendments, consequential on Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 37, leave out ("(4) and") and insert ("(3A) to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the Amendment to which I have just referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 39, at end insert (", but as if in the said subsection (3A) the reference to subsection (2) were a reference to subsection (2) of this section.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Privilege against incrimination of self or spouse]:
8.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "Any" and insert "The". The noble and learned Lord said: I think this is the last Amendment on which I need say more than a few words. This Amendment and Amendment No. 37 are paving Amendments anticipating the new subsection (2A) inserted by the Amendment to Clause 14, page 15, line 24. These two drafting Amendments are intended to clarify the effect of extending the general privilege against self-incrimination to cover incrimination of a spouse.
Clause 14(1) is intended to confer a general privilege against incrimination of a spouse co-extensive with the general provision against self-incrimination. It follows that if in a particular case the

683
privilege against self-incrimination is taken away, then the privilege against incrimination of a spouse should also be taken away. It can be argued that, as drafted, Clause 14 already has this effect, on the ground that subsection (1) (b) operates only where there already is a privilege against self-incrimination. But this is not altogether clear, since it can equally be argued that to take away only the existing general privilege against self-incrimination in a particular case would not ipso facto take away the new general privilege against incrimination of a spouse conferred by Clause 14(1).
Accordingly, the first two Amendments make it quite clear that Clause 14(1) is dealing with the general privilege; and the new subsection (2A) provides in terms that any enactment negativing the privilege against self-incrimination also negatives the privilege against incrimination of a spouse. A further advantage in so providing is that there are some dicta which might constitute authority for the proposition that the privilege against incrimination of a spouse subsists at Common Law. If so, it is all the more necessary that it should be taken away wherever the privilege against self-incrimination is taken away.
Also, in its present form Clause 14 is not entirely satisfactory as a support for those Amendments to existing enactments contained in the Schedule which would make those enactments expressly negative the privilege against incrimination of a spouse. It will be more convenient for the practitioner if these Amendments are made, because they will make it immediately clear without reference to Clause 14 what effect the enactment in question is to have as a result of Clause 14. Subsection (2A) justifies their inclusion in the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("Any") and insert ("The")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I dealt with this Amendment under the previous Amendment, No. 36. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("such a right as is") and insert ("the right").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I dealt with this Amendment also under Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) In so far as any existing enactment provides (in whatever words) that in any proceedings other than criminal proceedings a person shall not be excused from answering any question or giving any evidence on the ground that to do so may incriminate that person, that enactment shall be construed as providing also that in such proceedings a person shall not be excused from answering any question or giving any evidence on the ground that to do so may incriminate the husband or wife of that person.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Committee would agree to take Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41 together, it would be convenient since they are all consequential.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I can only take the next two Amendments. Amendments 39 and 40 have been moved en bloc.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 25, at end insert ("that")
Page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("provides") in line 31 and insert—
("(b) provides as mentioned in subsection (2A) above, further").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Consequential Amendments relating to privilege]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 34, after ("(2)") insert ("(2A)").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [General interpretation, and savings]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment consequential on

685
the Amendments to Clauses 11, 12 and 13. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, leave out lines 12 to 14.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE: We owe an apology to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having criticised his use of the expression "civil offence". If my memory serves me correctly, the words "civil offence" appear in the Army Act itself in contradistinction to a military offence. I do not think we ought to have questioned those words.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. That was my recollection. But when the noble Viscount said what he did, I thought I must have been wrong, because there is provision in the Army Act making any civil offence a military offence.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Ignorance is no excuse on my part, but I think that the way we put it was clearer.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

COMMONWEALTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL
8.56 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I wish that I could have mercy on noble Lords who still remain, but unfortunately I have my duty to do. They will understand that this speech has to be made for the benefit of those noble Lords who no doubt will spend part of their day tomorrow reading my speech in the House of Lords Hansard, and also for a large number of people in other parts of the Commonwealth. I understand that my words will be read by many of our fellow citizens of the Commonwealth in all parts of the world, which is a rather flattering thought. I am sorry that I shall take a little longer than I might perhaps wish. In order to assist noble Lords, I will accelerate my speech as much as possible,
686
which may make it difficult for the poor reporters and noble Lords to follow me, but it will play its part in other ways.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The prime purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect in the United Kingdom to a Commonwealth commitment concerning changes in the present Commonwealth Telecommunications partnership. Some of these changes have taken place already, some are due to take place. I anticipate the noble Lord opposite asking me exactly why there should be this change. I can supply him with the answer forthwith, and this no doubt will help him to abbreviate even more the speech he will make later on. The reasons are as follows. Members of the existing Board, being in London and away from their own Administrations through no fault of their own, often have to refer back to their Governments before they give advice. The great increase in partner Governments resulted in some Governments of newly independent countries being unable to find representatives with telecommunications experience to reside permanently in London. While recognising the valuable work performed by the Board, the Commonwealth Governments consider that it will be better to have a dispersed body consisting of senior telecommunications officials actually serving in the telecommunications administration of the countries whose Governments they represent. By this means it was hoped that they would be in closer touch with their Governments and in a better position to give them advice. Indeed, this Bill, which I shall briefly explain, arises out of a conference which has been held on this matter.
Noble Lords who are unfamiliar with the administrative mechanism of the Commonwealth telecommunications system, may be interested to hear something of its history. The first submarine telegraph cables were laid a century ago, and some continue to give good set vice. Outside Europe, the beginning of the century saw the agreement of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and certain of the Australian States to lay and operate a cable spanning the Pacific. From this comparatively small partnership, using a single medium of communication, has sprung a

687
network of telegraph and radio links enveloping all save two Commonwealth countries. Those two countries operate their external telecommunications outside the common-user system. I should perhaps explain that the partnership is not concerned solely with the transmission of messages between one Commonwealth country and another Commonwealth country, but is also concerned with messages between a Commonwealth country and a non-Commonwealth country. Indeed, it is of financial advantage to the partnership that such traffic should pass over as much of the Commonwealth network as may be operationally reasonable and convenient. It is also open to partners to exclude from the partnership arrangements, by mutual consent, certain of their services; and some services have been so excluded. Generally the excluded services are those to contiguous countries.
The expansion of telecommunications services and a continuing community of interest, which found expression first in Imperial and later in Commonwealth conferences on communications over the years, came at last to fruition in the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreements of 1948 and 1963.
In those countries which have acceded to the Agreements, the installations which are used for external telecommunications are owned by individual Governments or their operating agencies. These installations are used co-operatively and the mutual indebtedness of the partners is settled by means of a wayleave accounting scheme. This is a departure from the normal international method of accounting, which is called a "parcours" system. May I say that I was not quite sure what that meant, and on looking in the dictionary I found that it really means one of three things: distance covered; route, course, path; or golf course. The last is quite remote from the significance of the word as now used, except that I notice that golf courses and telecommunications have tees. Be that as it may, the revenue on each call or message between two countries is divided between the administrations which handle it.
The wayleave method is quite different and extremely complicated. I hope your Lordships will exempt me from the need
688
to explain all the details, and I am sure you will give your hearty assent to that. Briefly, the basic principle is that the Commonwealth partners keep all the revenue from traffic they put on to the common-user network and then share the total costs. From the gross revenue certain terminal charges are deducted. What is left is declared as wayleave revenue. The aggregate expenses of the partnership are then divided between them in proportion to their wayleave revenues. Thus, if a country's wayleave revenue is, say, 6 per cent. of the total wayleave revenues, it bears 6 per cent. of the total expenses.
These financial arrangements are administered by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board, which was set up in London in accordance with the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement, 1948. But this is not the Board's sole function. It is also expected to make recommendations to the partners on such telecommunication matters as may be remitted to it. The Chairman of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board is appointed jointly by partner Governments, each of which may also appoint its own member. In addition, the British Government appoints a member to represent those territories not directly represented by other members.
Since 1949 the Board has met at least once a fortnight under a number of distinguished Chairmen, of whom the first was the noble Lord, Lord Reith. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to past and present Chairmen and members of the Board and thanking them for their efforts over the years. I have no doubt that all other Commonwealth Governments will wish to be associated with the British Government in these sentiments. The present Chairman is Sir Dawson Donaldson, and I feel sure that we are all grateful to him for agreeing to extend his service with the Board until next year when he returns to his native New Zealand. All of that could obviously not have been omitted from my speech.
The Commonwealth Telecommunications Board is obliged to make an annual report to the partner Governments, and noble Lords may wish to know that a copy of the Report for 1966–67 was placed in the Library of the House at the beginning of this week. For all the

689
good work that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board has achieved, however, it has become clear in recent years that the present administrative arrangements will no longer serve. The nature of telecommunications has changed, and the Commonwealth itself has changed. Some partners, particularly the newer members of the Commonwealth, have experienced difficulty in providing members with the requisite telecommunications background, and in keeping them permanently in London.
For these and other reasons, the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference held in London in 1966 recommended that the present arrangements associated with the partnership should be changed. These detailed recommendations have been accepted by all Commonwealth Governments, and I should like now to outline the changes which have already been made or which are imminent.
There is now a Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation, with an agreed constitution and made up of three organs. The most important of these is the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference, which is to meet every three years. Attendance at the Conference is not confined to partner Governments. The second body in status is the Commonwealth Telecommunications Council, which is to meet not less frequently than once a year and comprises the representatives of the partner Governments. Between meetings of the Council, representatives are expected to conduct its affairs by correspondence. Thirdly, there is to be established in London a Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau, or Secretariat, which will operate under the control of the Council.
The Council has an executive function and also the advisory function which is to be relinquished by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. The secretariat activities of the Board will be assumed by the new Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau, together with the administration of the existing financial arrangements of the partnership. The Council has already met twice, but the Bureau is not yet in existence. It is hoped to have a nucleus of the Bureau in being by October this year, to work in harness, as it were, with the Board until the latter body is wound up at the end of March next year.
690
So far as the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreements are concerned, their purposes will then either be spent or superseded, and it is expected that they will be terminated by agreement. Also at the end of March, 1969, another agreement will come into force to perpetuate the existing financial arrangements. If I may recapitulate in order to dispel any possible confusion there will therefore be two agreements, the one to terminate the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreements of 1948 and 1963; the other to carry on the present financial arrangements.
I turn now to the human side of these changes. Your Lordships may feel some concern for the future of the members and staff of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. The members of the Board are, of course, the responsibility of their own Governments. Some of the staff are on secondment from the Post Office and will return there, and there is reasonable confidence that other staff will be absorbed info the Bureau. I am sure that noble Lords will be gratified to learn that the Council has agreed not only to assume responsibility for the payment of pensions to pensioners of the Board, but also to safeguard the pension rights of those now serving with the Board.
Finally, I come to the Bill itself. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau shall have the legal capacity of a body corporate. This is to enable the Bureau, through the General Secretary as its head, to have the legal capacity to buy or rent property, engage staff and in other ways to go about its business in a legally responsible fashion.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the repeal of those sections of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act 1949, and the First Schedule to that Act, under which the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board was established. Clause 2 also provides for the removal of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board from the First Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957. This is obviously consequential on the dissolution of the Board, but there is no need for the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau to be mentioned in substitution for the Board for the Bureau

691
is not, unlike the Board, a body with members. It is proposed that Clause 2 shall come into force on the day on which it is intended the Board shall be dissolved, for the legal capacity of the Board will have to be preserved to the end of its life.
This Bill provides a small yet vital element in the administrative arrangements of a changing, and increasingly important, Commonwealth telecommunications system, which is a unique and valuable instrument of Commonwealth co-operation. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sorensen.)
9.9 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will, I am sure, join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, for the clarity of the detail of his description of this Bill, and also in congratulating him on the speed with which he carried it through. It is not a very easy matter to say at speed "Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference" as many times as he managed to do it with as few mistakes.
Whenever one hears the Commonwealth mentioned in the news nowadays it always seems to be because of some disagreement between its members; but the great value of the Commonwealth is in the many ties, some relatively minor,
692
some hidden, which exist and flourish. They receive little publicity, but they contribute in a very real sense to bridging the economic, racial and ideological differences which plague the world. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Board (or the Council and Bureau, as it will become) is perhaps one of the most valuable of these organisations, dealing as it does with facilitating the flow of information between every continent.
We on these Benches welcome Her Majesty's Government's intention to implement the recommendations made by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference in March, 1966. We are very pleased to know that Commonwealth conferences on telecommunications will be held every three years and we hope that the new Bureau and Council will continue the valuable work of the Board and that the structure will add to the effectiveness of its work.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for the brevity and the eloquence of his speech.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.