Sitting of 11 June 1968

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 31st May for the Whitsun Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE CHURCHYARD BILL
  Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.
  CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
  CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  ELY-OUSE ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords]
  SAINT JAMES AND SAINT PAUL, PLUMSTEAD BILL [Lords]
  SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOSPITALS

    Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirbymoorside
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Adela Shaw Orthopaedic Hospital, Kirbymoorside.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): This is being considered by the Leeds Regional Hospital Board, which is consulting local interests. I have not yet received any formal proposal.
    Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that the procedure laid down in circular 1958 has been disregarded in this case in that the Board has reached a decision, communicated it to the staff of the hospital and held a Press conference, at which it described the closure as inevitable, before

    3
    local interests were consulted and before a local inquiry was held? What action does the Minister intend to take to put this right?
    Mr. Robinson: This is not my information. I am informed that local consultations are now proceeding and that the Board has not yet decided what proposals to put forward. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has arranged to meet the Board at an early date. I should not like to make any further statement until I have a proposal from the Board.
    Mr. Michael Shaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this hospital draws patients from a very wide area, much of which is very isolated, particularly in winter, and that, therefore, it is necessary to take into account the real needs of the locality before any decision is taken?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman knows that all decisions to close hospitals are made by me, and one of the factors I always take into account is the adequacy of alternative arrangements.

    Heart Transplant Operation (Cost)
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the exceptional nature of the heart transplant operation at the National Heart Hospital on 3rd May, he will make a calculation of its cost.
    Mr. K. Robinson: To calculate the full cost would involve making a number of arguable assumptions and then expending a disproportionate amount of time and effort.
    Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members want to send good wishes for the complete recovery of the patient concerned? Does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate that the large sums involved in experimental advanced surgery of this kind— and about £20,000 is the figure I have seen—should come from the National Health Service budget? Will he consider asking Parliament for a special budget for research work of this kind?
    Mr. Robinson: Research funds come from a number of different sources under existing arrangements. While paying tribute to the outstanding achievements of the hospital team which performed the operation, it would be well not to
    4
    forget the great contribution which the hospital service can make to the relief of human suffering by means of simpler and more routine procedures. I understand that the patient's improvement, following his relapse yesterday, has been maintained, but his condition still gives cause for concern.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of what the Minister has said, will he reassure the House that in counting the cost of these operations he is also counting the diversionary effect on more conventional treatment?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, certainly.
    Dr. Winstanley: In addition to considering the cost and the whole question of priorities in the medical sphere in a matter of this kind, we ought to be considering further the question of the decision about the point at which death takes place and the question surrounding the giving of consent relating to operations of this kind. Does the Minister agree that it is time we debated the whole matter?
    Mr. Robinson: The question of a debate is not for me, although I would welcome expressions of view from the House and from other quarters. The conference which I called has been reconvened and has reconsidered this matter. I shall be making a further statement to the House in due course.

    Royal Hospital, Richmond (Casualty Department)
    Mr. A. Royleasked the Minister of Health why the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey, was informed by him by letter dated 14th May that there was no immediate prospect of the reopening of the casualty department of the Royal Hospital, Richmond, in view of the letter of the same date from the Chairman of the South-West Regional Hospital Board, informing the hon. Member that the department was reopened on 13th May; and if he will institute an immediate inquiry into this misunderstanding between his department and the Board.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's letter of 22nd May.
    Mr. Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman now give a firm assurance that the casualty

    5
    department of the Royal Hospital, Richmond, will remain open?
    Mr. Snow: As the hon. Gentleman probably remembers, during an Adjournment debate on the Friday preceding the Whitsun Recess I undertook to pursue inquiries with the regional board concerned about the future of this Department. This I shall carry out, and write to the hon. Gentleman when I have established the facts.

    Imported Plastic Surgical Products (Sterility)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain imported plastic surgical instrumentation is less thoroughly sterilised than comparable British products necessarily sold at a higher price; what steps he is taking to ascertain whether this equipment is sterile; when he will announce an official definition of the word sterile; and if, meanwhile, he will ensure that none of the imported products will be bought for the National Health Service.
    Mr. Snow: The sterility of these products can only be ascertained with certainty by inspection of manufacturing conditions and methods; the system of control by inspection and other means is being extended; there is no doubt about the definition of the word sterile; hospital authorities are warned when my Department has reason to believe that an item of medical equipment may be hazardous.
    Mr. Driberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also extremely important to seek to define standards of packaging, and is he aware that shoddily packaged products identical with those that he told me in a letter would be rejected are now being bought by the Army and shipped all over the world to British military hospitals?
    Mr. Snow: I shall certainly look into that matter in collaboration with my right hon. Friend in the Ministry of Defence, and when I have ascertained the facts so far as they affect my Department I shall write to my hon. Friend.

    Sheffield Region (Doctors, Nurses and Hospital Beds)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Health what is the ratio between the number of doctors, nurses and hospital beds
    6
    available and total population in the Sheffield Region; and how this ratio compares with that in other regions.
    Mr. Snow: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gardner: Is it not true that our region is relatively poorly provided for? Is not this a sad reflection on the previous Administration? Will my hon. Friend ensure that in future this region receives both capital and continuing financial payments to enable the Health Service to be really effective?
    Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend is right. This is an inheritance with which we have had to deal. The deficiency of hospital beds and other facilities in many parts of the region was one of the principal factors taken into account in preparing the hospital building programme for the region. This programme is now well under way, and no doubt my hon. Friend knows of the new district general hospitals being built at Doncaster, Boston and Barnsley.
    Following is the information:

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL MEDICAL STAFF, NURSES AND BEDS PER 10,000 POPULATION ENGLAND AND WALES✶

    Region

    Mdical Staff

    Nursing Staff

    Beds

    All regions England and Wales

    4·4

    46·5

    96·6

    Newcastle

    4·2

    44·8

    92·2

    Leeds

    3·9

    47·0

    105·2

    Sheffield

    3·2

    36·8

    76·4

    East Anglian

    3·4

    37·0

    84·1

    Metropolitan regions

    5·7

    52·5

    106·9

    Oxford

    4·3

    43·4

    83·2

    Southwestern

    3·8

    50·1

    108·1

    Wales

    4·3

    50·0

    100·0

    Birmingham

    3·6

    38·5

    86·2

    Manchester

    3·9

    44·7

    90·7

    Liverpool

    4·8

    54·8

    106·6

    Wessex

    3·5

    43·1

    90·5

    ✶ Estimated home population at 30th June, 1967. Medical and nursing staff in whole-time equivalents at 30th September, 1967. Beds at 31st December, 1967.

    Hospital Admissions (Waiting Time)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health what is the average waiting time in Great Britain for admission to hospital for cataract operations, varicose vein operations, tonsilectomy, adenoidectomy, for pay bed patients

    7
    and National Health patients, respectively; and what further steps are being taken to step up the proportion of National Health beds as compared with pay beds.
    Mr. Snow: In 1966 in England and Wales the median waiting time for hospital admission of National Health Service patients was about 11 weeks for cataract, 12½ weeks for varicose veins and 15 weeks for tonsils and adenoids operations; comparable information about private patients is not available. My right hon. Friend has no plans for a further general review of pay beds at present.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree, however, that this idea of having first-class and second-class patients from the point of view of waiting time is completely alien to the ideology of the type of Health Service which most hon. Members on this side of the House want to build up? Would he agree that ultimately—in the long term if not in the short term—his aim must be to abolish pay beds?
    Mr. Snow: The general intention of the review on this subject was quite adequately discussed earlier. As regards the local position, which may be of particular interest to my hon. Friend, he will know that there has recently been a small adjustment because of new circumstances and evidence which came to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Maddan: Would the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between the median waiting time which he gave in his Answer and the average waiting time for which his hon. Friend asked?
    Mr. Snow: The median waiting time is the time waited by the middle case in a group listed in order of the amount of time waited. A large proportion of the cases occur around this point. The median time is not affected by a patient having a long waiting time, and the use of this formula gives more accurate information to the House.

    Senior Psychiatric Social Workers
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many social workers in training are unable to
    8
    have the experience of a student placement in a psychiatric hospital for lack of a senior psychiatric social worker to teach them; and if he will therefore take steps to increase the number of such senior workers.
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend has told hospital authorities of the need and asked them to examine ways of extending training facilities.
    Dr. Winstanley: We are grateful for that Answer as the existing salary structure operates to the disadvantage of hospital social workers and has hitherto been responsible for a drift of social workers from hospitals to local health authorities. The hon. Gentleman's statement will be very much welcomed.
    Mr. Snow: I am much obliged.

    New Hospitals
    Mr. Maddanasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that hospitals to be built at Bury St. Edmunds and Frimley are very similar in concept to the proposal put forward two years ago by the Brighton consultants for a new hospital at Stanmer Park, the concept of which he rejected, he will now reconsider the application of the Stanmer Park concept in deciding future hospital developments.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I cannot accept the premise on which the hon. Member's Question is based.
    Mr. Maddan: Is the Minister aware that an official spokesman of his Ministry told the Brighton Evening Argus that the concepts were similar? Does he agree that the constructional features in these two new hospitals are very similar to those put forward by the Brighton consultants, and will he go a step further and adopt the ideas of the Brighton consultants for the fast throughput in acute hospital beds which is also an essential part of their scheme?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I have already said that I am not prepared to do so. My view is quite clear that these concepts are very different. I will examine what the spokesman is alleged to have said to the Brighton Evening Argus.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Mental Illness
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Health what increased expenditure he is proposing for 1968-69 on research into the causes and treatment of mental illnesses.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Expenditure by my Department on research into various aspects of mental illness and mental sub-normality will be about £54,000 in 1968–69, compared with £33,000 in 1967–68.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: As about half the beds in this country are occupied by people suffering from mental illness, will the right hon. Gentleman, in this Mental Health Week, do something to increase the effort, both financial and otherwise, put into research?
    Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the main agencies for the support of research are the universities and the Medical Research Council for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Lipton: Without denying the value of this kind of research, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give priority to ensuring that local health authorities have a sufficient number of local health workers to visit mental cases on a domiciliary basis?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that we need both.
    Lord Balniel: As only 8 per cent. of the Medical Research Council's budget is devoted to research into mental illness and mental subnormality, and as, as my hon. Friend said, 50 per cent. of the hospital beds are occupied by patients who are mentally ill, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there ought to be a marked improvement or a full explanation given to the public so that this situation is acceptable to them?
    Mr. Robinson: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address questions about the Medical Research Council to my right hon. Friend who is the responsible Minister.

    Epileptics
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health why it is taking eight years for the Joint Committee of his Standing Medical Advisory Committee and his Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons to report on the implementation of the recommendation of the Cohen Report on medical and welfare service for epileptics.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The recommendations of the Committee on the Medical Care of Epileptics were commended to hospital authorities when its Report was published in 1956. This followed appropriate advice to local authorities in 1953. The Joint Sub-Committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee was set up in 1967 to review the nature and scope of the services currently provided and to advise on their future development. Its report cannot be expected yet.
    Mr. Pavitt: Can my right hon. Friend say why it took from 1956 until he took office to report what happened as a result of this Report, and, as this question of epilepsy deals with mental health, will he take the opportunity to welcome Mental Health Week and the excellent work being done by the National Association?
    Mr. Robinson: I warmly welcome Mental Health Week with which I have been associated in past incarnations. I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to comment on the sins of omission of previous Governments.

    Prescription Charges
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Health by what means the patient will be able to appeal against a refusal to grant exemption from prescription charges.
    Mr. K. Robinson: There is no formal right of appeal; but any representations made to my Department or to that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security against a refusal to issue an exemption certificate will be carefully considered.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that many people have had great difficulty in reading, and more

    11
    so in understanding, the advertisements about exemptions, and that the absence of a more formal means of appeal will leave many patients with a sense of grievance in the months ahead?
    Mr. Robinson: I hope not. I think my hon. Friend will recognise that executive councils are not exercising any discretion. They are dealing with medically supported facts in issuing exemption certificates. I do not think that this is an appropriate situation for any formal right of appeal, but I am prepared to investigate any representations which might be made to me.
    Mr. Dean: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he will put his officers in a difficult position? As interested parties, they are going to be judge and jury in the cases concerned, are they not?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I do not think that that is the case. I think it more likely that there might be representations on grounds of financial hardship, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, who is well accustomed to this sort of problem.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend take a special look at the problem of appeals in relation to the hospital service? Only yesterday there was considerable confusion, and there is a need for further advice, especially to newly employed people, to cope with this problem.
    Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend gives me any evidence, I shall certainly consider whether further advice to hospital authorities is necessary.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the grievance which the reimposition of prescription charges will cause, can the right hon. Gentleman say how much money will be saved by their reimposition? Could not cuts have been made in other Government expenditure in place of these?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being present in the House when we debated the matter just before the House rose for the Whitsun Recess. It was dealt with at some length then. The saving will be about £25 million a year.

    Rural Areas (Pharmaceutical Services)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to improve facilities for obtaining medicines prescribed by doctors in rural areas.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Executive councils are responsible for securing the provision of adequate pharmaceutical services in their areas and for dealing with any local difficulties which may arise. I am not aware of any need for general action.
    Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the growing number of old people and the progressive decline in rural transport services it is becoming more and more difficult for old people to get to chemists' shops to get prescriptions made up? Will he ask local executive councils to look at the whole problem again?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that executive councils keep this matter continuously under review. The difficulties in remote areas are often eased by informal arrangements, or, where these are not appropriate, by schemes organised with safeguards and with the advice of the Pharmaceutical Society for the collection of prescriptions and the delivery of medicines.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In considering the difficulty of dealing with prescriptions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to forget the problem of people in remote country areas buying household remedies? Will he give an assurance that the general sale list to meet these needs will, from the start, be made as wide as possible?
    Mr. Robinson: I hardly think that that arises out of this Question, but I think that I gave the hon. Gentleman similar assurances during the Committee stage of the Medicines Bill.
    Mr. Cant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in important urban areas such as Stoke-on-Trent there are pharmaceutical deserts in which people do not have access to chemists' shops? Will my right hon. Friend consult the executive councils to try to set up a chain of pharmaceutical prescription collection points, because the pharmaceutical authorities are

    13
    favourably disposed towards that suggestion?
    Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend has a particular area in mind and would like to send me details, I will certainly look into it, but I should remind the House that I have no power to require a pharmacist to practice in a particular place.

    Cigarette Coupons
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Health if he will state when he intends to introduce legislation to ban cigarette coupons.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I cannot say at present.
    Dr. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend at least confirm that he will be introducing legislation in the near future, without giving us any definite date? Would he go a little further, in view of the fact that over 30,000 people will die of lung cancer in this country this year, and start now a much bigger public health and educational campaign to try to get people off cigarette smoking?
    Mr. Robinson: On the question of the campaign against cigarette smoking, the newly-constituted Health Education Council will be dealing with this matter in due course. As to the time of the legislation, my hon. Friend knows that it is not for me to decide. The statement which I made on 23rd October last stands.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: While it is obviously important and invaluable for the Ministry to put over all the information it can by way of publicity to people warning them of the dangers of unnecessary smoking, may I ask what is the point of trying to ban their smoking if they so wish, since they can die in any way they wish?
    Mr. Robinson: I have a responsibility to the House and the country for the promotion of health as well as the cure of disease.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: You might as well ban everything.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend see that any proposed Bill along these lines is put in the dustiest pigeon-hole in his Ministry and allowed to remain there?
    Sir J. Rodgers: Would the right hon. Gentleman resist the temptation to interfere with the marketing methods used by the firms concerned of a product which is freely on sale?

    Nurses and Midwives (Pay)
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a detailed statement on the National Board for Prices and Incomes' Report No. 60 on the Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Tom Boardmanasked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a detailed statement on Report No. 60 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Pay of Nurses and Midwives in the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply on 28th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 761, c. 335–6.] So far the Whitley Council has reached agreement on a number of recommendations including the four per cent. increase, effective from 1st October, 1967, in salaries and board and lodging charges, the psychiatric and geriatric leads, effective from 1st April, 1968, and the extension of overtime payments in psychiatric hospitals, effective from 1st October, 1968.
    Mr. Dean: In that reply, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be having discussions with the nurses and midwives concerning the recommendations about training and management. Have those discussions yet taken place?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir, they have not taken place, but they will take place shortly.
    Mr. Boardman: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable feeling of unfairness among student and pupil nurses living in, because, at the end of May, they were required to pay increased charges for board and lodging which they have already had and paid for over the previous eight months?
    Mr. Robinson: Board and lodging charges, which are still heavily subsidised, have always been linked with the pay of student and pupil nurses, and

    15
    it was a clear recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board that the two increases should be operative simultaneously.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend undertake to look very carefully at this proposition, especially where there are gross and unfair anomalies in the Board's Report? Is it not the case, for instance, that a three-year trained staff nurse at the maximum will get less than a two-year trained senior enrolled nurse? Is this not a gross reflection on the nursing profession?
    Mr. Robinson: These matters will be considered in detail by the Whitley Council and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them while these negotiations are in progress.
    Mr. Moyle: Would my right hon. Friend not think it appropriate at this time to advise the Whitley Council that overtime payments should now be made to all nurses, no matter what sort of hospital they work in?
    Mr. Robinson: It is not for me to advise the Whitley Council. The Council is considering the recommendation of the Board which, with the agreement of the Government and the profession, considered the whole matter of nurses' pay.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Surely it is within the Minister's competence to express an opinion about differentials. Can he assure us that he has taken the point of the narrowing of the differential, partly due to overtime, between the highest-paid auxiliaries at the lower end of the scale and the lowest-paid matrons at the top end of the scale? Would he not consider the effect of this on recruitment, on people staying in the profession and on incentives for those seeking higher positions, particularly tutorial positions?
    Mr. Robinson: I have had no representations on this matter yet, but I will consider the point which the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health whether any nurses will receive less payment as a result of the review of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the pay of nurses.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The Board's recommendations on pay are still under negotiation in the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council. None of the agreements so far reached could result in a nurse receiving less payment.
    Mr. Fisher: Is it not rather strange to find, in a Report stressing the need to attract more part-time staff, that nurses who work only on Sunday or do night duty on fewer than five nights a week will, so far as I can see, actually receive less? If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman iron out that kind of anomaly?
    Mr. Robinson: This point is still under discussion, and, although a considerable extension of the arrangements for special duty payments is recommended—at considerable cost, I may say, to the Exchequer—the present rates would be reduced for many nurses. This matter is being discussed by the Whitley Council, which is seeking further advice from the Prices and Incomes Board.
    Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no nurses will receive less pay under the new arrangements?
    Mr. Robinson: It would be wrong for me to give any assurance at this stage while the matter is not only under discussion at the Whitley Council but has gone back to the Prices and Incomes Board.

    Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a detailed statement on the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 9th Report, Command Paper No. 3600.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a detailed statement on the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 9th Report Command Paper No. 3600.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Discussions are in progress with the medical profession on matters left for negotiation with them but implementation of the Review Body's recommendations for doctors and hospital dentists must await the professions' decisions on these recommendations. It has been agreed that the recommendation

    17
    that the target net income of general dental practitioners should remain unchanged does not at present require revision of the scale of fees.
    Mr. Macmillan: But does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the amount which is spent on training and the increasing amount which it is proposed that the Commission should spend, that an increase in doctors' remuneration is required if medical practitioners are to be retained in this country and he does not in future face the necessity of sending missions to the United States to try to get them to come back?
    Mr. Robinson: All these points were considered by the Review Body on the evidence submitted by the profession, and it made its Report. That Report is still under discussion, as I said, with the profession.

    Royal Commission on Medical Education
    Mr. van Stranbenzeeasked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement on the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have nothing yet to add to my reply of 23rd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden. West (Mr. Pavitt).—[Vol. 763, c. 22.]
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does not the Minister appreciate, while one understands the necessity for consultation, that, in the interim, the whole system of medical education is in the melting pot, right across the board? Does he not feel that that lends urgency to a decision by him?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised on 4th April, the Government are now examining the recommendations in the Report most urgently.

    Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Health how many full-time training centres are now approved by the Training Council for Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped; and how
    18
    many this represents for adult training centres and junior training centres.
    Mr. Snow: There are 17 full-time courses approved by the Training Council now in operation and the number will increase in September to 22, of which seven will be for staff of adult centres and 15 for staff of junior centres.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's answer—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not in your brief."]—At least I write my own. He implied that he was talking about how many courses were approved by the Training Council. I asked how many training centres are approved. May I take it that the answer is the same in both cases?
    Mr. Cant: On a point of order. Are we witnessing an innovation in constitutional practice, in that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) is reading from a carefully prepared brief? If this is so, are these briefs prepared by the Civil Service?
    Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting point, but not exactly a point of order.
    Mr. Snow: I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman's question qualitatively. In most cases the terms are synonymous, but not absolutely so. There is a new possibility of recruiting more people for this sort of work in the shape of the new course being established at the Ewell Technical College, a part-time two-year course for older women wishing to take up the teaching of mentally handicapped children, and this will start shortly.
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health how many teachers employed in training centres for the mentally handicapped are qualified.
    Mr. Snow: At 30th September, 1967, 1,020 supervisors and assistant supervisors in local authority training centres were qualified to teach the mentally handicapped.
    Mr. Dean: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the new methods of training are yielding very encouraging results and does not this suggest that a higher priority should be given to qualified teachers?
    Mr. Snow: The figures for staff who are now undergoing courses and are securing appointments show a quite reasonable improvement, but we have a lot of leeway to make up.

    Old People
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the evidence as to the number of old people not getting the services they need, put forward by the Officer of Health Economics, details of which have been sent to him; what conclusion he has reached; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Snow: The research reported in this useful publication is well known both to my Department and to the authorities responsible for providing services. Development of existing services will continue, and the authorities' powers will be greatly augmented by Clause 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill at present before Parliament.
    Mr. Fisher: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that nearly three-quarters of a million people over the age of 65 who are in need of, for example, chiropody services, are not receiving them and that the demand for the home help service is more than twice the rate of supply? Will he seek to extend these services which are so important to old people?
    Mr. Snow: If the hon. Gentleman examines the proceedings in Committee on the Clause to which I have referred he will see that the matter was adequately discussed, and we think that it will increase flexibility in the provision of the care and various services which he mentioned. These points were discussed and examined to the general satisfaction of that Committee, but perhaps we can look at the matter again.
    Lord Balniel: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that many elderly people occupying expensive and scarce hospital beds could be more effectively and more happily cared for in sheltered accommodation with proper domiciliary services? Will he place the emphasis of his policy on short-stay geriatric units
    20
    coupled with adequate domiciliary services?
    Mr. Snow: That is the emphasis which we are at present placing, but we believe that the increased general facilities about which I spoke when answering his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) cover the point he has made, in addition to the more general question.

    Children (Inoculations)
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Minister of Health, in view of the large number of inoculations and immunisations required by children which are spread over a long period, if he will recommend to local health authorities that they adopt a standard official form of record card to be given to parents to enable them to check that inoculations are given at the right time.
    Mr. Snow: Many local health authorities already issue record cards for this purpose, and this was one of the points brought to the notice of medical officers of health by my right hon. Friend's Chief Medical Officer in a recent letter aimed at improving acceptance rates.
    Captain Elliot: I appreciate that, but does not the Parliamentary Secretary think that as the number of inoculations and immunisations increases, so it would be advantageous to standardise the form to ensure that it is the same throughout the country?
    Mr. Snow: This would be desirable but not entirely practicable since local practice and usage is not identical in all areas. My right hon. Friend is commending a new schedule which will go a long way to meet what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Would my hon. Friend realise that this is a matter of particular importance to patients in remote parts of Scotland and in country districts? Will he, in making any beneficial changes, bear this in mind?
    Mr. Snow: I will always take note of anything mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend, but this matter would be more appropriately raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

    Geriatric Patients Domiciliary Care)
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to increase facilities for the domiciliary care of geriatric patients.
    Mr. Snow: Local authorities plan substantial development of their domiciliary health and welfare services for the elderly and others and the powers envisaged in Clause 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill should assist this. The increasing association of local authority nurses and health visitors with family doctors should improve the domiciliary services available to all, including the elderly. Day hospital and outpatient geriatric provision is also being expanded.
    Dr. Sunmerskill: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, as his general policy is to decrease the number of old people's beds in hospitals and not to increase them, a great burden will rest on general practitioners and local authority services?
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. While this is so, it is not necessarily undesirable. The intentions behind Clause 45, to which I have referred this afternoon, include using facilities outside hospitals which may in many cases be more desirable and satisfactory to the people concerned. This is a more flexible attitude which my right hon. Friend has adopted and which we think will serve the public well.
    Dr. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion, put to him several times, of the appointment of a new officer to local health authorities —an old person's officer—to be responsible for the integration of all these services which are coming from so many different sources?
    Mr. Snow: I will look at this matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

    Doctors
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to encourage doctors to remain in this country rather than leaving to work permanently abroad.
    Mr. K. Robinson: A number of important improvements in the working conditions of hospital doctors were agreed last
    22
    year and further proposals have been made with a view to improving career planning and prospects of junior doctors. As regards general practice, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) on 5th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 13–14.] My aim is to improve still further, in consultation with representatives of the profession, working conditions throughout the National Health Service as the best means of encouraging doctors to remain in this country.
    Dr. Summerskill: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the emigration of at least 500 doctors a year is extremely serious? Has he implemented the suggestions made to him by the group of doctors who recently visited America to interview other doctors who had emigrated there?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I have certainly considered that report and I agree that emigration is a serious problem. However, it is not a new problem and nor is it one confined to this country. The best statistics I have available suggest that, on average, in the three years ending September, 1965—the latest date for which figures are available—the annual net loss of British doctors was about 370.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the Minister aware that the hand-out his Ministry issued on Friday, 5th January, indicated that the main reasons for doctors leaving the country were medical, that is, the conditions of work, and the main reasons for their return were non-medical, that is, considerations about children's education and so on? Therefore, when considering net figures such as those he has just quoted, will he bear in mind that what is bringing the doctors back is not necessarily the conditions of the National Health Service, although that may be what is sending them out in the first place?
    Mr. Robinson: We are steadily improving conditions in the National Health Service. As I said in my reply, it is our aim to make further progress in this direction.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend look at the position of the junior partners in general practice partnerships, as the conditions of service and the partnership agreements they have signed

    23
    are sometimes the reasons why they emigrate?
    Mr. Robinson: This may well be the case, but my hon. Friend knows that the question of partnership agreements freely entered into between doctors is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that a number of doctors are writing to their Members of Parliament saying that they wish to emigrate, because they feel that they are losing the art of medicine in this country and are becoming form-fillers and not healers?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that there were always a small minority of doctors who wrote in this strain.

    Mental Health Education
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health if mental health education is to be part of the responsibility of the newly-formed Health Education Council.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The Council's remit extends to mental health education.
    Dr. Winstanley: In view of the Minister's statement, which I welcome, would not it be helpful to have on the Council one person clearly identifiable as having a primary interest in mental health?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that there is more than one member of the Council who has had experience of this work, and there is an additional member who I know has experience whose appointment takes place in a month or two.

    Disabled People (Home Employment)
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities run home employment schemes; and how many mentally and physically disabled people are assisted in this way.
    Mr. Snow: Paid home employment is provided for 798 blind people by local authorities under schemes for home workers. No other statistical information is available.
    Mr. Lnbbock: Why cannot this scheme be extended to the psychiatric patients? Does the Minister realise that that would have an immense therapeutic value? Will he see that local authorities extend it to this group?
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir, but we must bear in mind that a slight difficulty develops sooner or later over social security benefits to which such patients are entitled. Therefore, we must watch the position rather carefully. There is no objection to this sort of incentive being provided.

    Mentally Handicapped Adults (Training Centres)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Minister of Health if he is yet in a position to issue guidance to local authorities on the principles which should govern incentive payments to trainees in adult training centres for the mentally handicapped.
    Mr. Snow: Guidance was issued last October.
    Mr. Steel: Can the Minister say what the response to the guidance has been from the local authorities? Is he satisfied that it is working correctly?
    Mr. Snow: It is a little early to read any particular lesson into the guidance that was given, but as regards incentive payments for mentally handicapped patients in training centres, we are under the impression that there are grounds for optimism. We must watch the position over supplementary benefits rather carefully, as I said in reply to an earlier Question.

    LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Lord President of the Council on 10th May at Aynho about the freedom of the Press represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The published portion of my right hon. Friend's speech to the Banbury Constituency Labour Party—and it is this which I imagine the hon. and learned Member has in mind—did not deal with matters of Government policy, Sir.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it really true that the Prime Minister has suffered from the Press " an orgy of abject and uncritical adulation", as the Lord President said? What does the Wonder Boy say?

    CZECHOSLOVAKIA
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister when he will make an official visit to Czechoslovakia.
    The Prime Minister: I have no present plans for such a visit, Sir.
    Mr. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Conservative Government once betrayed Czechoslovakia in the same way as the Opposition would now betray the people of Rhodesia? Will he seek to make amends by considering what economic assistance can be given to Czechoslovakia to maintain conditions in which there can be further progress towards freedom? In particular, will he consider releasing a certain amount of gold to that country?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on what is currently happening internally in Czechoslovakia, but two of my right hon. Friends have recently visited Czechoslovakia and one discussed in some detail the possibility of improving trade arrangements with Czechoslovakia. I think that trade rather than economic assistance is what would be appropriate.
    Sir C. Osborne: Arising from the supplementary question, will the Prime Minister tell the House how a previous Conservative Government could have saved Czechoslovakia from its fate when the Labour Opposition refused to vote any arms at all and were against conscription?
    The Prime Minister: It all seems a long time ago, but I do not believe that many Conservatives today defend their then Government's record in 1938.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister if he will now make further efforts to negotiate a settlement of the Rhodesian question.
    Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia in the light of the Whiley Report and the United Nations resolution.
    Mr. Archerasked the Prime Minister what further action is proposed
    26
    through the United Nations Organisation to end the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Our policy regarding a settlement in Rhodesia remains as described by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and myself during the debate on Rhodesia on 27th March. On the question of action through the United Nations I would refer hon. Members to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to Questions on 30th May.— [Vol. 761, c. 1662; Vol. 761, c. 1545; Vol. 765, c. 2135.]
    Mr. Lloyd: Lest the House may be tempted to conclude from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman enjoys his rôle as the eye in the centre of the typhoon, will he state unequivocally—I know that that is "difficult for him—if he is prepared to resume negotiations with Mr. Smith forthwith?
    The Prime Minister: The position is exactly as stated in the debate and several times in Answers to Questions since. We have said that we are prepared to consider any possibility arising out of a willingness to implement the six principles. There has so far been little evidence of any willingness to accept the six principles, and in the most recent public statement there was a flat denial of their acceptability to Rhodesia.
    Mr. Wall: If the Prime Minister will not talk to the Rhodesians, is his policy now to wait until sanctions have caused the Africans to revolt? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Ministers have had any talks with African leaders who organise the freedom fighters-cum-terrorists?
    The Prime Minister: I see that the hon. Gentleman is very faithfully reporting a speech by Mr. Smith during the Recess. The position is that, appropriately, Commonwealth Office Ministers have had talks with African nationalist organisations in this country and in Lusaka. We do not accept the illegal proscription or detention of Africans carried out by the hon. Gentleman's friends, and it is perfectly appropriate that the Government who have the ultimate responsibility for deciding the fate of Rhodesia in a Parliamentary sense should have

    27
    talks with representatives of the majority as well as the minority in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Archer: Can my right hon. Friend say approximately how many countries have initiated action to implement the Security Council Resolution? Will he confirm that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who for months have been declaring that sanctions must be ineffective are likely shortly to find their doubts on that score set at rest?
    The Prime Minister: I have not had an up-to-date list of the number of countries that have already taken legislative or executive action, but certainly a number of countries quoted by hon. Members opposite as permitting trade with Rhodesia have already taken action. With regard to my hon. Friend's second question, I do not think that there will be any doubt that sanctions are having a considerable effect and that there is great anxiety in Rhodesia about them. No one in the House would want to see sanctions last for a day longer than necessary. As I said to Mr. Smith on H.M.S. " Tiger ", we could have started to unwind sanctions in December, 1966, if he had accepted the terms then proposed to him, which the Conservatives supported him in rejecting.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this bench welcome the steps which have just been announced by Her Majesty's Government in order to negotiate the right kind of settlement?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course, this is a question of the right kind of settlement. Everyone wants to see a settlement there but that settlement must be in accordance with the principles laid down by the previous Government in this country and accepted by Her Majesty's present Government. These are the principles which the whole House has maintained and if any hon. Members in any part of the House are prepared to rat on those principles, we are not.
    Mr. Whitaker: Although it is possible that the Monday Club is right and that the unanimous view of the Security Council is wrong, is it not a fact that the Rho-desian Front has rejected the Whaley Report and has come down on the side of permanent white supremacy? Does not this show the futility of further negotiations with Ian Smith? In what way is the
    28
    United Nations proposing to make sure that the new sanctions are effective?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that any hon. Member has suggested that the Whaley Report was consistent with the six principles, but, whereas Mr. Smith showed some desire to accept it, it is clear that pressure from the Right caused him to move into the even more intransigent position which was set out in his interview with the Sunday Telegraph some weeks ago.
    Mr. Sandys: Will the Prime Minister give a clear answer to the question put to him earlier? Is he or is he not prepared to resume talks with Mr. Smith now with a view to making a further effort to find out whether it is possible to reach a settlement?
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to our debate in March, his absence from which we all regret and understand, when I stated the position clearly. I have repeated that position many times since. If we get clear evidence of acceptance of the six principles from those who have the power to talk in Rhodesia, we will be prepared to talk, but every attempt made so far has led either to the rejection of the six principles or, when progress was being made, to a scurrying away under pressure from the Right wing. In any case, we cannot deal with the racialists in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Tinn: Despite what has been said on the Opposition benches about the ineffectiveness of sanctions, has my right hon. Friend noted the reports from Rhodesia about increasing pressure by business interests on the Smith régime? Would not he agree that, until this kind of pressure for a more realistic attitude by the régime begins to show results, it would be premature to consider further approaches to Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: It is not so much a question of a more realistic attitude by the régime but of a more broadly-based Government such as we proposed to Mr. Smith in the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger" and which at that time he was prepared to contemplate. There is no doubt, from the pressures and very gloomy statements both by the tobacco industry and by the organised chambers of commerce and industry, that sanctions are having a very

    29
    serious effect. We all regret that they have had to go on so long and that there has been no response by those responsible to the kind of offers made so frequently in accordance with the six principles.

    MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY (SPEECH)
    Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Minister of Technology at Llandudno on 25th May, recommending changes in the Parliamentary system, with a view to preventing a breakdown of law and order, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Minister of Technology at Llandudno on 25 th May on the use of referenda represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 29th May to a Question by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). [Vol. 765, c. 241–2.]
    Mr. Sandys: If the Prime Minister shares the view of the Minister of Technology that Parliament is getting out of touch with the country, has he considered the idea of holding a Genera] Election?
    The Prime Minister: I do not in any way share the view that Parliament is out of touch with the country. I heard the noteworthy broadcast the day after my right hon. Friend's speech in which my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman expressed their personal views on these matters. I thought that the truth lay somewhere between the two.
    Mr. Turton: Would not the Prime Minister be wise to accept the Minister of Technology's advice and hold a referendum on whether or not we should withdraw our application to join the Common Market and so avoid the discontent which the Minister of Technology envisaged would engulf the nation in bloodshed?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any question of bloodshed
    30
    arising from the decision to apply to join the Common Market, which was accepted by such a large majority in the House. I do not recall that my right hon. Friend suggested a referendum on the matter which is so dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart, but I think that most right hon. and hon. Members would regret the idea of government by referendum.
    Mr. Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is great danger in having a referendum, which might quickly become a plebiscite? Recognising this, and also accepting that a gap may be widening between public and Parliament, may I ask him to look into the possibility of creating a system whereby it is possible for members of the public to record their opinions and make those opinions collectively accessible to Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that my hon. Friend always fully responds to these judgments when they are made by members of the general public, but I think that the real issue, as the House recognises, is that every Government of whatever party must sometimes take, over a fairly lengthy period, measures unpopular but necessary. If each of these measures or each tax proposal had to be submitted to an immediate referendum, there would be no Government and no taxation.

    PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
    Mr. Archerasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Church Assembly in Scotland on human rights on Sunday, 26th May.
    Mr. Roseasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public address to the Church Assembly in Scotland on Saturday, 25th May.
    The Prime Minister: I have already done so, Sir.
    Mr. Archer: My own researches confirm my right hon. Friend's answer and I thank him for his action. Will he confirm that, with a few rather bad exceptions, the civilised world is moving towards a consensus about the proper

    31
    treatment of minorities and that, if the Race Relations Bill reaches the Statute Book substantially in its present form, we shall shortly be in a position to ratify the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination?
    The Prime Minister: My speech referred to the Race Relations Bill but in a non-political and non-party sense appropriate to a gathering of that kind. Indeed, I went so far as to quote what had been said by certain right hon. Members opposite on the question. I agree that some of the deep disappointments there have been in other countries, and the attempt, which appalled so many of us recently, to whip up racial hatred in this country, are exceptions to the decent views of the people of this country and of most other countries where we have seen these manifestations as well.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: What is the Prime Minister doing about the improvement of race relations in Nigeria?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the extremely difficult situation following the breakdown of the talks which we tried so hard to get established in Kampala, my right hon. Friend will be answering a Question, I understand, at the end of Question Time on the whole situation in relation to Nigeria.

    PRESIDENT BOURGUIBA
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the President of Tunisia to visit the United Kingdom to discuss matters of mutual concern.
    The Prime Minister: I have no present plans to discuss matters of mutual concern with President Bourguiba but he would of course always be a most welcome visitor to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hooley: Has my right hon. Friend seen the constructive and statesmanlike proposals put forward by President Bourguiba recently for a solution of the Middle East situation? What initiative are Her Majesty's Government using to take steps towards the solution of the increasingly dangerous situation in the Middle East?
    The Prime Minister: While some form of United Nations force might have a
    32
    place in any arrangements for putting the Security Council Resolution of 22nd November into effect—and this was envisaged, as he explained at the time, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) when he was Foreign Secretary—it would be inappropriate for me at this moment to comment when Mr. Jarring is pursuing his very difficult talks in New York. We must leave implementation matters until those talks make further progress.

    WOMEN (PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the disproportionately small number of women appointed by him to serve on public committees, councils and boards, and of the valuable services rendered by women in the Civil Service and in other spheres; and what plans he has made to correct this disproportion in future appointments.
    The Prime Minister: The Government are well aware of the contribution women can and do make in so many spheres; as to public appointments, these are made solely on the basis of suitability for the post concerned, and very many women have accordingly been appointed.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the success of those already appointed, and indeed those elected to this House, will the Prime Minister appoint more so as to establish equality between the sexes in the various spheres of public service?
    The Prime Minister: The real way, of course, to establish and honour the principle of equality is to appoint the best person for the job regardless of whether that person is a man or a woman. If one starts arguing that we have to appoint more women just because they are women that is a denial of equality in itself.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that on regional economic planning councils women are conspicuous by their absence? In view of his expressed opinion, will he correct this omission?
    The Prime Minister: That has already been noticed and there will be discussion about it when vacancies occur.

YUGOSLAVIA (MR. PHILIP DOBSON)
Sir J. Rodgers(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the position of his constituent, Philip Dobson, who was recently sentenced to six years' imprisonment in Yugoslavia following a road accident.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): Immediately after my arrival in Yugoslavia 1 discussed Mr. Dobson's case with Her Majesty's Ambassador and Her Majesty's Consul-General at Zagreb and I also spoke with Mr. Dobson's father on the telephone.
On 6th June I raised the case with the Yugoslav Foreign Minister and with President Tito on the following day. Following these talks Mr. Dobson decided to address a petition for pardon to President Tito. This was made two days ago and I expect that Mr. Dobson will be released and allowed to return to this country very shortly.
I am sure that the whole House will share the relief of Mr. Dobson and his family at this outcome.
Sir J. Rodgers: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the prompt, effective and compassionate interest shown by the Foreign Office, and, in particular, by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State, is much appreciated? Would he agree that the robust attitude of the British Press, local and national, and the broadcasting authorities, while the House was not sitting, strengthened his hand in these negotiations?
May I ask whether the free pardon granted by Marshal Tito while the sentence still remains will cause my constituent any embarrassment in applying for a visa to go abroad, particularly if he wishes to travel to the United States at any time?
Mr. Stewart: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for what he said in the first part of his question.
On the second part, I felt that my hands were strengthened by the reporting in several newspapers of the expressions
34
of feeling by the parents of those who were killed in the accident.
On the third part of his question, in view of the attitude adopted by the Yugoslav Government, it is, I think, unlikely that Mr. Dobson's freedom to travel abroad will be affected.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thanks of the House, and, indeed, of the country, should be extended to President Tito himself, and that his attitude in this matter has borne comparison with the attitude of the Russian Government in the cases which have been referred to them?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I am glad to have the opportunity to say here what I have said elsewhere, that I believe President Tito acted generously, humanely and promptly. Both the Yugoslav Foreign Minister and President Tito listened courteously and carefully to my representations. I am glad that their response has been so satisfactory.
Mr. Goodhart: Following the satisfactory outcome of this case, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to trying to secure the release of my constituent, Mr. Derek Fairhurst, who has been held in a primitive prison in Persia for two months following a traffic accident and, according to the Foreign Office, may have to remain there for three months more before the case comes to trial?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, I have not neglected this case, but the hon. Member will realise that all these cases differ from one another. While it is the duty of the Foreign Office to do what is right for British subjects, the hon. Member must realise that we are not always as fortunate as in this case.

NIGERIA (CIVIL WAR)
Mr. Winnick(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's decision to begin talks with both sides in the Nigerian civil war in order to find a settlement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.

35
Her Majesty's Government were distressed that, despite the efforts of the Commonwealth Secretary-General and of the Government of Uganda, the peace talks at Kampala should have been suspended.
It has all along been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support every endeavour to bring the Nigerian civil war to a negotiated conclusion so as to avoid further bloodshed, suffering and bitterness. In the new circumstances they have felt it right to take advantage of the presence in London of the leaders of the two negotiating teams, Chief Enahoro and Sir Louis Mbanefe to conduct informal exploratory talks with each.
The object is not to try to take over from Mr. Arnold Smith, to whose patient and skilful work we all pay tribute, but to see if we cannot help to smooth the path back to the conference table. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Shepherd saw Chief Enahoro on 7th June and Sir Louis Mbanefe last evening; he hopes to have further talks with each of them this evening.
The House will not expect me to discuss the details of these exploratory exchanges, but I must make it clear that no question of recognition is involved.
Our greatest interest in all this is that peace should be restored in Nigeria as soon as possible and I hope that the House will approve of the initiative which we are taking.
Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he and the Government will have the good will and support of the entire House in trying to end the slaughter and to bring about a negotiated settlement? Is he aware of the depth of feeling in the country that arms supplied to the Nigerian Government should be cut off so that we should not be a party to the slaughter?
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in his opinion, since Biafra is now recognised by a number of African Governments, it is possible that the decision to recognise Biafra will have some influence on Russian policy to continue to supply the Nigerians with arms?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can answer for the Russian Government's policy. Nor do I think that the recognition of Biafra—by, I think, four countries—has materially affected the situation. I think that it is understood that it is the general aim of African countries that they should not be threatened by secession and possibly dissolution.
On the question of the supply of arms, I do indeed know the depth of feeling, but I am convinced that if we were to take the steps suggested by my hon. Friend now, certainly at this juncture above all, it would not in any way enable us to contribute more towards a settlement but might make it harder for us to play a useful part.
Mr. Maudling: We on this side of the House share the Government's desire to see peace in Nigeria. We certainly wish success to this new initiative, but may I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the supply of arms? While fully appreciating the reasons behind Government policy up to date owing to the extremely difficult situation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will reconsider policy on this point, particularly now when the dangers of massive slaughter appear to be brooding over the scene?
Mr. Stewart: If we look at the situation as it now stands with this fresh possibility of getting talks started again, we have to remember that the suspension of talks at Kampala was brought about by Biafran action and that for us to take action now which would be hostile to the State prepared to go on with the talks would not, I think, help the situation.
Mr. David Steel: I welcome the statement made by the Foreign Secretary. Does it mark a change of policy from a year ago, when no Government would speak to Sir Louis Mbanefo when in London? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the statements made by Cardinal Heenan and the Church of Scotland on the growing disquiet about the supply of arms in this tragic situation?
Mr. Stewart: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the circumstances to which he referred of a year ago were not comparable to

37
those now. As I made clear, the fact that these talks are now to go on does not involve recognition. The main thread of the Government's policy throughout has been to seek a peaceful settlement with both sides, and that remains our policy.
I am aware of the expressions of feeling to which the hon. Member has referred, both from those quarters and from others, but I believe that the right answer is the one that I have already given.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Will Her Majesty's Government now take the initiative in approaching the other Governments involved to stop the export of all arms to Nigeria, both from Government and private sources? Is he aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are distinctly puzzled by the Government's continual and persistent refusal to take this positive and normal procedure?
Mr. Stewart: We have said, and I want to reaffirm this, that if it were possible to get a cessation of arms supplies that would be agreeable to both sides in order to promote a settlement, we should be glad to consider that. What I felt it necessary to reject was a proposal that by our own action we should stop the supply of arms to the Federal military Government at this time.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the pressing issue of the supply of Red Cross material? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has said that this would be looked at by the Government. There is world pressure for this action. There is resistance to Red Cross supplies being landed. I am sure that the best contribution that we could make would be to insist on Red Cross material getting through.
Mr. Stewart: Yes, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to look further into that. I understand that the Federal military Government have expressed their willingness to facilitate the supply of materials of this kind into Biafra.
Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will realise that all of us hope that these discussions will lead to a settlement. If they do not, I hope that he will bear in mind the experience of the Ibo people over the years since this trouble began. If there cannot be a cease-fire, will my right hon. Friend
38
realise that many of us feel that the Government would be under a moral obligation to work with other Governments to stop the supply of arms?
Mr. Stewart: I note very carefully what my right hon. Friend says, but he will agree that this question is hypothetical on attempts to reach a settlement being unsuccessful. I very much hope that hypothesis will not be realised.
Mr. Tilney: In addition to approaching all Western Governments as well as those of the Eastern bloc with a view to exerting the maximum pressure on both sides, would the Foreign Secretary offer British participation in a Commonwealth peace-keeping force so that the Ibos need not fear massacre and the federalists need not fear the build-up of arms against them?
Mr. Stewart: It might well be that a force of that kind could play a part in a final settlement, but the question of joint action with Governments outside the Commonwealth we should have to consider very carefully. We would probably be unwilling to consider joint action with Governments outside the Commonwealth that might have the effect of depriving a Commonwealth Government of a supply which normally it would get.
Mr. Paget: In view of the overwhelming evidence that the policy of the Nigerian Army is to slaughter men, women and children, can one say that the Biafrans are responsible for breaking off the talks when the condition of the talks was that authority should be handed over to that Nigerian Army?
Secondly, can one be on the side of the integrity of Nigeria, which, after all, is a colonial accident, when, before this war happened, 30,000 Ibos were slaughtered in other parts of Nigeria?
Mr. Stewart: On the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question, I cannot accept the assumption of fact which he makes, and, in consequence, I cannot agree with his conclusion.
On the second part, I think that it should be noticed that there are living in territory held by the Federal military Government a considerable number of Ibo population unmolested. I know that there is a complex and unhappy history to this, but I do not believe that to deny

39
the integrity or existence of Nigeria would be the right way out of the problem.
Mr. Crouch: Has the Foreign Secretary sensed this afternoon the growing awareness of both sides of the House in recognising his determination to achieve peace between the two disputing sides in Nigeria? Is he also sensitive to the growing misunderstanding on both sides of the House at the Government's lack of strength in taking the initiative to stop sending supplies to one side? Will he not give an initiative to the other countries involved in the supply of arms?
Mr. Stewart: I have answered already, in reply to other hon. Members, both the points which the hon. Member has made. I am glad to feel that in his judgment we are attempting to reach a settlement, but I have given reasons, which, I think, are adequate, why the cutting-off of the supply of arms, particularly at this juncture, would not help to promote a settlement.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: While everyone wishes the Foreign Secretary well in his efforts to secure a settlement, if those efforts do not speedily succeed will he make a maximum effort to secure that all arms from all sources shall be stopped?
Mr. Stewart: I must make two points about that. First, this is a hypothetical question. Secondly, as I said in reply to an hon. Member opposite, I do not think that we should wish to take joint action with countries outside the Commonwealth to prevent the supply of arms to Commonwealth Governments.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the Foreign Secretary noted that Sweden has stopped sending arms to Nigeria? Surely he must be aware that the amount of arms going to the Federal Government completely outweighs the amount going to the other side? Will he take note of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have refused to supply arms to South Africa to carry out her obligations under the Simonstown Treaty, but do send arms where casualties are mounting every day?
Mr. Stewart: There is no parallel between these two cases. There is an extremely important difference, to mention
40
one, that in South Africa we are carrying out a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

NIGERIA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
Mr. Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect of allowing the supply of arms from Britain to Nigeria to continue now that the peace talks at Kampala have broken down."
The Kampala peace talks broke down at the beginning of the Whitsun weekend, just after the House had gone into recess, and this is, therefore, the first possible opportunity I have had to make this application.
The breakdown of the peace talks at Kampala comes at a time when the war is moving into a guerrilla stage, and, if it is now pursued to a military conclusion, there is no doubt that civilian casualties will be even heavier than they have been so far. Even though peace talks may take place in London, I understand that it has been made clear to Sir Louis Mbanefo, the Biafran negotiator, that the British Government still intend to continue the supply of arms to Nigeria.
But, most important of all, during the year or so that has now passed since Biafra declared itself independent, there has been no opportunity for Members of the House to debate the situation that has arisen between Nigeria and Biafra, and, especially, no opportunities to debate the controversial decision of the British Government to continue the supply of arms to Nigeria. It has only been possible to put Questions to Ministers.
Finally, there can be no doubt that there is mounting public anxiety at the continued supply of British arms to Nigeria, as has been evidenced by the editorial tone in many newspapers.
I therefore beg to suggest that the breakdown of the peace talks at Kampala is sufficient reason for the House to have an emergency debate on this controversial aspect of Government policy.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he intended to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect of allowing the supply of arms from Britain to Nigeria to continue now that the peace talks at Kampala have broken down."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—
Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours. This is as provided for under the terms of the revised Standing Order No. 9 as agreed to by the House on 14th November, 1967.
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

FINANCE BILL
3.54 p.m.

The purpose of this Motion is to provide for a Recommittal stage for discussion of the Finance Bill. Such a stage was envisaged by the Select Committee on Procedure and, I think, pressed for by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).
In a few words, the case for a Recommittal stage is that it will give an opportunity to hon. Members who were not members of the Committee upstairs to raise points or move Amendments on the Floor of the House. To give the maximum time for this to be done, the Government do not propose to table any Amendments on Recommittal. Any Amendments that we have will be kept until Report. It may be that the Official Opposition will think that it would be helpful if they took the same approach.
The Government would thus be given the maximum opportunity to consider Amendments moved by hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee and, where these were acceptable in some form, it would still leave time for the Government to have them suitably prepared and accepted on Report.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Iain Macleod: In the present situation, which we have opposed and on which we have made our views clear, I am sure that, in general, this proposal is for the convenience of the House and, therefore, we accept it.
I have only one point to raise, and, in large measure, it is one for the Leader of the House; and perhaps he will allow me to return to the matter during Business Questions on Thursday. It may be
44
that this Recommittal stage will come fairly swiftly—we do not know; I see no great need for hurry—but we have not seen the reprinted Bill. It will not be reported from the Committee until about midnight on Wednesday.
The point that I wish to put to the Leader of the House and the Financial Secretary is this. This is a new procedure and, therefore, there is nothing to guide us in the matter. The Financial Secretary seemed to indicate that he thought that the Recommittal stage should be almost exclusively a field-day for the eleven-twelfths of those hon. Members who were excluded from the Committee upstairs and that they should have their go at the Government with some hope, at least, that some of their Amendments might be accepted.
I take that point as far as it goes, but it would be a great mistake to try to exclude those right hon. and hon. Members who have been toiling over the Bill in Committee. Therefore, I do not go as far as the Financial Secretary in saying that the Official Opposition would not wish to table Amendments on the Recommittal stage; certainly we would.
A Recommittal stage is a good idea, and I take the point that it should be basically for those hon. Members who were unable to take part in the Committee stage. However, because time will be short, it is a matter of importance for the Leader of the House to make this clear to the House as soon as possible so that hon. Members who have not followed the flow of events upstairs may get their Amendments on the Notice Paper as soon as possible. It may be

45
that the Leader of the House can give me an interim reply now, and we might return to this on Thursday if, in fact, his announcement of next week's Business includes something about Recommittal of the Bill.
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has made a fair point. Certainly, I will give him more details when I make my Business Statement on Thursday.
This Motion was tabled for the convenience of the House. I agree it should not inhibit even hon. Members of the Official Opposition from putting down Amendments. However, I have noted what the right hon. Member has said, and I will elaborate on this on Thursday.
Question put and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  GAMING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: As is my custom, I have posted up a list of the Amendments which I have selected. The first one that I am calling is new Clause 1.

New Clause 1

  RESTRICTIONS ON ADVERTISEMENTS RELATING TO GAMING
  (1) Except as provided by this section, no person shall issue, or cause to be issued, any advertisement—

  (a) informing the public that any premises in Great Britain specified in the advertisement are premises on which gaming takes place or is to take place, or

  (b) inviting the public to take part as players in any gaming which takes place, or is to take place, on any such premises, or to apply for information about facilities for taking part as players in any gaming which takes place, or is to take place, in Great Britain, or

  (c) inviting the public to subscribe any money or money's worth to be used in gaming whether in Great Britain or elsewhere, or to apply for information about facilities for subscribing any money or money's worth to be so used.

  (2) The preceding subsection does not apply to any advertisement in so far as it relates to gaming which is, or is to be,—

  (a) gaming as an incident of an entertainment to which section 32 of this Act applies, or

  (b) gaming to which section 40 of this Act applies, or

  (c) gaming on any premises to which paragraph 4 of Schedule 9 to this Act applies and in respect of which a permit under section 33 of this Act is for the time being in force, or

  (d) gaming on any premises to which paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1963 applies and in respect of which a permit under section 49 of that Act is for the time being in force, or

  (e) gaming at any travelling showmen's pleasure fair.

  (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to—

  (a) the display, on any premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force, of a sign or notice indicating that gaming takes place, or is

  47
  to take place, on those premises, whether the sign or notice is displayed inside or outside the premises, or

  (b) the publication or display of a notice, where the notice is required to be published or displayed by any provision of Schedules 2 to 4 to this Act and the publication or display is so made as to comply with the requirements of that provision, or

  (c) the publication in any newspaper of a notice stating that a licence under this Act has been granted, if the notice is published not later than fourteen days from the date on which the licence was granted and the notice is in a form approved by the licensing authority by whom the licence was granted;

  and, in the case of any premises in respect of which a club is for the time being registered under Part II or Part III of this Act, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any advertisement by reason only that it contains the name of the club.
  (4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper which circulates wholly or mainly outside Great Britain.
  (5) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he is a person whose business it is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received the advertisement in question for publication in the ordinary course of business and did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence under this section.
  (6)For the purposes of this section an advertisement issued by displaying or exhibiting it shall be treated as issued on every day on which it is displayed or exhibited.
  (7) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

  (8) In this section 'advertisement' includes every form of advertising, whether in a publication or by the display of notices or by means of circulars or other documents or by an exhibition of photographs or a cinematograph film, or by way of sound broadcasting or television, and references to the issue of an advertisement shall be construed accordingly; and 'the public' means the public in Great Britain, and includes any section of the public in Great Britain, however selected —[Mr. Callaghan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With the new Clause we are taking the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in line 35, at end insert:
  'or,
  (d) the publication in any newspaper of a notice containing the following and no other particulars namely the name and address of the club, that it is licensed for gaming, the native of the games played and the hours of play'.
  Mr. Callaghan: The effect of the new Clause is to put back into the Bill a Clause which appeared originally and which was taken out in Committee by eight votes to seven, with one dubious vote being counted. It was a very close Division.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who was in charge of the Bill, undertook before the vote that the Government would consider carefully what had been said by hon. Members in relation to the Clause, and I have done so.
  I think that the House is entitleq to know why I ask it to put back the Clause in a slightly different form from that which was defeated in Committee. The purpose of the Clause is to restrict the advertising of gaming. There is a view to be taken here about whether the advertising of gaming is good or not. I, for, one, do not believe that it is, good, and I am in favour of restricting it as far as possible.
  I think that is a specific social attitude that one can accept or reject. I tell the House quite frankly where I stand on the matter. I should explain the reasons why I ask the House to put back this Clause and, in the course of that explanation, to examine the reasons advanced against so doing.
  First, the arguments in Committee were directed almost solely to the proposed restriction of advertisement by licensed clubs. But subsection (1) of this new Clause is a great deal wider than that, especially paragraph (c), which is designed to strike at the promotion of activities organised elsewhere. I quote as an example postal bingo, organised in the Isle of Man, which, frankly, takes the form of a lottery and, therefore, is not within the province we have been discussing.

  49
  Secondly, it strikes at gaming touts who invite people to subscribe money to the State on their behalf. Whatever may be said on behalf of permitting advertisement of postal bingo in the Isle of Man, there is little to be said for permitting advertising by gaming touts to invite people to subscribe money. Their claims often verge on the fraudulent. Their activities, in any case, are a highly undesirable form of propagating gaming. The measures taken against this abuse— and I use the word advisedly—fell foul of the Committee when it struck out the whole of the Clause, although there was no argument about it at that time. Therefore, I would like to put it back on those three grounds.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Does subsection (l)(c) make it a criminal offence to offer tickets in either the Irish Sweep or the Calcutta Sweep?
  Mr. Callaghan: I should like to answer the question about criminal offences later, because I want to get some information about it. But what applies to the organisation of postal bingo in the Isle of Man would apply also to others of these matters, certainly.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I should like to get this clear. Subsection (l)(c) refers to gaming, not lotteries. I think that these are lotteries.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged. I am told that the right hon. Gentleman is right. These are lotteries. It applies to gaming, not lotteries.
  The three arguments advanced in Committee were, first, that once the gaming clubs had been licensed and made honest and respectable there was no reason why they should not be allowed to advertise; secondly, that it was wrong to try to restrict advertisement of a single form of gambling whilst leaving others like betting in touch, although restricting advertising of such activities as strip tease; and, thirdly, that these restrictions can be evaded.
  Let us take them one by one. First, that commercial gambling is to be licensed subject to strict conditions. That does not mean that we should assist its propagation. We are controlling it. We should try not merely to contain it, but to cut it back. To allow the clubs to advertise freely would be incompatible with that
  50
  approach which the Government have made during the course of the Bill. It would be incompatible with the requirement that, before a club can be licensed, there must be shown a substantial demand already existing for the facilities offered. There is little point if gaming activities are to be allowed to stimulate demand. I ask the House to take the view that we should not allow gaming clubs to persistently stimulate demand. This is an attitude and approach about which the House will have to make up its mind.
  Secondly, it is erroneous to argue that all forms of gambling should be treated alike. Gaming is potentially the most dangerous of all forms of gambling. I say that for these reasons: first, that there is continuity of play; secondly, that there is rapidity of turnover; and, thirdly, that there is a prevalence of competitive staking. These things make gaming not only potentially, but actually, very dangerous indeed.
  The advertising of betting is already restricted. Credit bookmakers can advertise, but betting offices may not. With the removal of the Clause gaming is now more leniently treated, which is surely the reverse of what anybody expected or intended. In any case, we cannot use the vehicle of this Bill to deal with other forms of gambling, let alone some of the arguments advanced in Committee about strip tease. We cannot wrap up everything in this Bill.—[Laughter.] That is a Freudian slip. It shows that I am not much of a strip teaser, I regret to say.
  It is surely not a good argument to say that because one is unable to deal with a number of other abuses one should leave unchecked the one that can be dealt with. Therefore, I do not accept as particularly relevant the fact one should not restrict advertising because one cannot do it in some other sphere of activity.
  On enforceability, a great deal was said in Committee about the fact that a determined gamer would find it possible to game in certain places and that clever people would find ways to advertise. A great deal of ingenuity was expended in Committee in discussing this matter. I think that some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen opposite have a good living to make should they decide to leave the House and go in for devising ingenious advertising campaigns, for

  51
  gambling. Although I do not pretend that one can prevent news or feature items appearing in the Press, or that astute public relations officers for the gaming clubs will not be able to get newsworthy items publicised, we come back to the simple point in the end: is it not worth trying to restrict advertising by putting in these prohibitions? My answer is, "Yes".
  The Clause is not seeking an absolute or impossible object. It is not relevant to criticise it as though it were. The object is none the less valuable because it is limited. To abandon these provisions would prejudice the whole policy of restraining commercial gambling. To permit the free advertising of gaming would be contrary to what underlies the Bill.
  I said that there was one amendment to the Clause as originally devised to which I should draw the attention of the House. That was the penalty provision in subsection (7), which was raised in Committee two or three times. The liability to imprisonment on summary conviction has been removed. That is consistent with similar changes made by the Committee elsewhere in the Bill—for example, in Clause 8(4), where there is the alternative of proceeding on indictment. The view has been taken that the authorities should resort to that alternative where imprisonment is sought. Apart from that, the Clause is as originally placed before the Committee.
  I believe the Clause to be right for the reasons I have given and I invite the House to reverse the decision taken by eight votes to seven. This is an attempt, which I believe will be much more successful than some of my ingenious hon. Friends believe, to prevent advertising of gaming which it is socially desirable to restrict. Therefore, I ask the House to restore the Clause.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) may be discussed with this Motion.
  Mr. Antony Buck: On a point of guidance. Is the position that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet
  52
  (Mr. Rees-Davies) can be discussed, and at a later stage, if that Amendment were to be moved, there would be an opportunity to vote upon it?
  Mr. Speaker: The difficulty is that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet is not here to move it. It stands in the name of one hon. Member.
  Mr. Buck: I understand that it can be moved.
  Mr. Speaker: I am advised that it can be moved. It has not, however, been selected for a Division.
  Mr. Buck: Do I understand that at this stage the Amendment has been selected for discussion, but not for Division? Is that the position?
  Mr. Speaker: If am hon. Gentleman feels very keenly about an Amendment which is not selected for Division it is open to him to make representations to the Chair. The Chair will take note of them, but does not always accept them.
  Mr. Buck: I will see that such representations are made to you, Mr. Speaker, perhaps during the course of my remarks on the new Clause just moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
  I express myself disappointed that the Government should have sought to restore this Clause, relating to advertising, which was removed by the Committee. I believe that during the Committee deliberations no fewer than 11 members of the Committee spoke on this whole question of whether or not there should be a ban on advertising; and all the 11 whom I counted spoke more or less against the whole tenor of this ban. I must express my disappointment that the Government should have chosen, without any Amendment, merely to seek to restore this provision at this stage.
  There is a variety of reasons why we on this side oppose this ban on advertising. The Home Secretary himself has dealt with some of them. First, I feel that we should be extremely chary of passing prohibitive legislation. As a rule, we do not like such legislation. We should pass Clauses which are prohibitive in character only if there is the clearest need for such provisions and

  53
  they are to fulfil a real purpose. Apparently, the real purpose of the Government's Clause is, as expressed by the then Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, to control the total level of and demand for activities relevant to gaming.
  That is what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, but so far as I am aware there is no evidence that a ban on advertising will be effective for that purpose. The Home Secretary may recall that some of my hon. Friends drew attention to the position that has arisen relative to certain restrictions on the advertising of cigarettes, and so forth. In my submission, there is no scientific evidence to support this prohibitive legislation which we are being asked to pass today.
  In any event, a ban on the advertising of casinos and bingo halls makes no sense, in my view, when it is permissible to advertise pools and similar forms of activity. It makes even less sense when one considers, as we understand, that the Government are adopting an attitude of sympathy towards a national lottery. If they are seeking to calm down and diminish the activity and the amount of money involved in this kind of sphere, it seems illogical that they, should be putting their weight behind a Bill which inevitably will cause a very great increase in this kind of gaming or lottery activity.
  If the Government are to support a national lottery they will have to back it up by advertising and we shall have the absurd and anomalous position that the Government will be advertising activities of a similar character to those we are here considering, while the bingo hall will not be allowed to advertise the modest facilities it provides. This does not seem to make very great sense.
  We should be chary of passing a prohibitive law of this character, a law which does not, in effect, accord with common sense. It does not accord with common sense for us to ban the advertising of bingo halls and casinos and to allow that advertising on pools betting and other activities of that type.
  Similarly, under the actual provisions of the Clause apparently it will be permissible for the full extent of gaming activities and the facilities available in this country to be advertised abroad. That seems something of a nonsense. In
  54
  New York, for example, one will be able to read in a publication about the Playboy Club and the various casinos which are available in London, but similar information will not be available to the tourist when he comes to this country. Once again, that makes a nonsense. That is the effect of the Clause as it is at present framed.
  The Home Secretary dealt with the matter I raised in Committee relative to the types of advertising which are permitted. Again, it seems illogical not to permit the advertising of casinos and bingo halls when one can and does find advertisements for four hours of non-stop strip-tease cabaret. That is to continue to be permitted whereas we are not to be allowed to read of any advertisement telling us of a modest family game, as the Home Secretary would have us believe it is, of bingo. That, again, seems to be a nonsense.
  The whole absurdity comes into fuller perspective when we consider it in the context of the whole purpose of the Bill. The Home Secretary dealt with that, but in my view he did so unsatisfactorily. The whole purpose of the legislation we are considering today is to regulate gaming and especially to eliminate clubs which might form a foundation of criminal enterprises, and to eliminate clubs which cheat or defraud. All of us, on both sides of the House, hope that that purpose will be fulfilled and that we shall have in this country gaming clubs and bingo halls of the very highest standards —and only those of the very highest standards; that we shall ensure that the people who get licences have the highest bona fides, and that the actual clubs are well run and the premises are satisfactory.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the Clause.
  Mr. Buck: I shall return to it in the next sentence, Mr. Speaker.
  If we seek to ensure that those places are of that high standard how absurd it is that they should not be able even to tell the public about their very existence. It seems to me that this highlights the absurdity. If we have confidence, as I have, that legislation may be successful and that we shall have a small number

  55
  of good quality establishments of high standard then those should certainly be allowed to advertise. In any event, they should certainly be allowed to advertise within the limits delineated by the Amendment we are able to discuss put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), namely, that those club, casino and bingo hall owners should be able to publish newspaper notices containing the bare facts of the name and address of the club, the character of the licence and the actual games to be played on the premises. Surely, that should be permitted.
  I would hope that in reply to the debate on the whole question of advertising we shall hear, either from the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary, why they oppose this—if, in fact, they do; because a limitation on advertising of this character would seem to me to make advertising entirely unexceptionable, even on the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary. I trust I shall be in order in raising this point, but I shall be interested to hear why the Home Secretary takes the view that bingo is, in this instance, in the same category as hard gaming. The arguments of the Home Secretary on the compulsive nature of gaming, and so forth, seem to apply only to hard gaming and not, in my opinion, to bingo. I would like to hear why the Minister feels, if, indeed he does, that bingo should be put in the same category as hard gaming for the purposes of advertising.
  There are many matters of detail which were dealt with in Committee, and no doubt my hon. Friends will wish to discuss them today, with regard to the drafting of the Clause which, I think, presents great difficulties. Has the Minister had consultations with those who operate the local Press throughout the country? Has he discussed with them the difficulties referred to in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)? Has he considered the sort of difficulties which arise when there is a mixture of editorial comment and advertisement? I hope that the matter has been investigated, because I think that the Clause as drafted will give rise to real difficulties in that respect.
  If the Government suppose that by enacting the Clause Parliament will do
  56
  good, they are asses. What is more important, we shall pass a law which in the words of a Dickens' character is liable to make the law look an ass. It will be unenforceable. It is an undesirable Clause. It is based on an inappropriate philosophy, and I hope that today we shall follow the procedure adopted in Committee and have no ban on advertising relating to any of these matters. I hope that we shall reject the new Clause.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I voted for the Clause in Committee, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is proposing to restore it to the Bill today. It is essential to the Bill, one of whose objects is to control gaming, and the other to contain it. It would be utter folly to introduce a Bill to contain gambling, and then to allow the unrestricted advertisement of gaming clubs.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) realises the effective power of advertising. If advertising takes place on a large scale, the power of the advertiser to attract people to gaming clubs is enormous. We are restricting the number of clubs, and we shall, therefore, be giving people a licence to print money if we allow unlimited advertising. The difference between the present position and the position as it will be when the Bill becomes law is that then there will be a restricted smaller number of licensed clubs, and if we allow unrestricted advertising for these clubs they will have an enormous power to attract people to them.
  Although the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) restricts the content of the advertisements, it does not restrict their size, and a full-page advertisement in a newspaper, even though it contained only the bare facts which the hon. Gentleman would allow, could be a powerful stimulus to attracting people to that club, or to other gaming clubs.
  The other argument which the hon. Member for Colchester advanced today, and which he put forward in Committee, is that the Clause will be ineffective and that the Government are asses if they proceed with it. They may be, but they are following in the path of other asses. They are following the path of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in 1963, introduced a similar Clause in respect of

  57
  betting shops, but which has proved satisfactory in practice. All the ways round the Clause which were mentioned in Committee, and which have been mentioned in passing today, were not adopted in respect of the 1963 Act. There was no attempt at a massive evasion of the section which prevented the advertising of betting shops. It is, therefore, erroneous of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of some of my hon. Friends, to think that the Clause will be ineffective.
  I supported the Clause upstairs, and I support it here. It is an essential part of the Bill, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is proposing to bring it back.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I appreciate the Home Secretary's motives. He wants to reduce the totality of gaming. He feels that if advertising is allowed to be free and plentiful it will have an adverse effect. I see the evil which he has in mind, but I think that greater evils will arise if advertising is prohibited.
  In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes), I remain convinced that the Clause will not work. I am not strongly in favour of paternalism in any form, but ineffective paternalism is the worst of all worlds. The Clause will not work for two important reasons. First, the inconsistencies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) referred are too glaring. Too much advertising on similar lines is permitted now, and in the eyes of reasonable people this prohibition will seem absurd.
  The second reason why it will not work is that there are too many ways in which it can be evaded. When we put forward this argument in Committee, we did so not with a view to obstructing what the Home Office had in mind. I know half a dozen ways in which local newspapers will find their normal run of business in difficulties. Many local newspapers run full-page features which are part-editorial and part-advertisement. It is very difficult to tell who is paying for what, but it is an accepted form of local journalism. I think that it will continue in this style and form, with a certain amount of surreptitious evasion taking place.
  I wish that a distinction could be made between gaming clubs and bingo halls, because it is bingo which interests the largest number of people, and they have
  58
  a right to know where the entertainment which they pursue, rightly or wrongly, is to be held. For this reason, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has a point in wishing to restrict the advertisement to information and not to the seductive need which troubles the Home Secretary.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he aims to reduce gaming, but there is another object behind the Bill. We are trying to straighten out this business. We are trying not only to reduce the totality, but to make the whole business sound and look straighter than it has been. If we are to encourage the straight dealers, and discourage the others, it is an ill start to put into the Bill something which will encourage the fly dealer to do something to get round what Parliament has proposed. I am convinced that this will result in a rich harvest for the lawyers. Innumerable borderline cases will be brought forward. I want to see the Bill work, just as much as the Home Secretary does, but we shall finish up with cheating, and this is what I find objectionable.
  I remember the era of Radio Luxembourg which, between the wars, managed to do a number of things which we did not manage to have done. I do not say that that era will recur, but there are other ways of doing what was done then, and I think that they will be adopted.
  Obviously, the Home Secretary is not going to think again. We should, therefore, stick to our guns and do what we did in Committee and reject the Clause.
  Mr. Paget: I, too, was wondering about Radio Luxembourg and similar institutions. Can one prevent that form of advertising? Is not one progressively getting to the situation in which there is less and less advertising that can be controlled?
  My attitude is that this is a good Bill. I think that it is irresponsible to try to put on the Government, who have to run the Bill, things which they do not want, or to take from them things which they do want. I voted against the Clause in Committee because I thought that it was extremely silly and required further consideration. I then said, and I shall stand by it, that, if the Government brought the Clause back again after further consideration, I would support them on the

  59
  general principle, but I do so on the principle and not because I am convinced in detail.
  4.30 p.m.
  Among the difficulties of our gambling law which have plagued us for years are the flagrant anomalies. We cannot get public opinion behind a law which is manifestly absurd. A man could go into a town for business with nothing to do in the evenings and find greyhound racing, which is no more than an animated roulette wheel, and horse racing, two forms of less controlled gambling, advertised freely, but it would be wrong for him to be told where he could spend the evening playing a little quiet bingo. That shows how absurd the position is.
  If we are trying to take gambling out of the muddle which has plagued it for a century and to ensure that the general public are behind the law as a reasonable method, we need at least an enforceable and understandable law. Suppose that I advertised, the "Crockford's Club is having a gala evening and here is the menu". Would I be informing the public that these were premises "upon which gambling takes place"? Not in the advertisement, but everyone who remotely wished to gamble would know it. If one called clubs in the provinces "Crockford's", or any other known gambling name, and advertised their floor show, menu or entertainment, one would walk straight through the Clause because that would not be prohibited.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said that the prohibition of advertising of betting shops was more successful. I disagree with him; I think that it has totally failed. Corral's, Hills and all those who own these shops advertise, and since they advertise the name, they effectually advertise every shop bearing their name. The advertising of those shops goes on, effectively, all the time. The same sort of thing will happen in this case.
  I am not convinced by the argument. We would be better without the Clause, but, nevertheless, the Government must run this, and if they think that it is necessary, having reconsidered it, I will not say them nay.
  Sir Stephen McAdden: I was delighted when the Committee
  60
  decided to delete the Clause and I am disappointed that, after consideration, the Home Secretary proposes to put it back. I thought that the arguments against it were conclusive. He said that his intention is to confine gambling and that that is why he does not want it to be advertised. If he wants to control and sanctify it with the odour of legality, why does he want to keep quiet about it? If this legislation will produce a purified creature and remove some of the odium from gambling, why should we not know where it takes place? Why should we have to search the proceedings of the courts to know who has been given a license before we can know where to go to play? Surely this is expecting too much of the public.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will prevent people from knowing where gambling goes on by restricting advertising? Surely he knows that Rank, Mecca and others run bingo. Will it be wrong for them to put an advertisement in the paper saying, "Rank, from 10 to 12"? Is that advertising gaming or not? How will he prevent organisations whose names are associated with a particular form of gambling from advertising their names so long as they do not mention that they will be gaming on the premises, and simply advertise their building? I do not see how he will prevent advertising at all.
  What will happen to such publications as "What's On in London", which are filled with advertisements about gaming? Can we not have a modest advertisement so that those who want to indulge in bingo or hard gaming can know where it is available? In the barbers' shop in this building, the right hon. Gentleman will find many copies of this magazine which will tell him what is going on in London. I am sure that life is much more respectable in Cardiff in relation to these vices, but in London they exist and are advertised and we must not try to apply the standards of Cardiff to the great cities where these things take place and people want to know where.
  What is wrong with advertising the places and the times at which these activities go on? Why should not a newspaper publish an advertisement containing the name and address of a club which is licensed for gaming, and the nature of the games played, and so on? Why should

  61
  people not have this information if they want it?
  Mr. David Weitzman: I am sorry that the Government have brought back this Clause, which I voted against in Committee. I regarded it from two points of view—that it was hypocritical and that it would be easy to drive a coach and four through it. I pictured a person who wanted to gamble walking the streets of London looking at the signs on doors and then being able to enter. I said that it was hypocrisy because my right hon. Friend, in referring to criticism that other forms of gambling were allowed to advertise, said that that was no argument. against the subject which we were then dealing with. But it is absurd.
  The pools and the betting shops openly advertise, yet the Government now say that a Casino and a gaming establishment should not be allowed to put one word of an advertisement in a paper. Why not? What effect will it have? This is sheer hypocrisy by the Government and will prevent no one who wants to gamble from doing so. This long Clause, so carefully drawn up, can be so easily evaded, with notices outside, and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have shown how absurd this is by pointing out that one can advertise as much as one likes in foreign newspapers. No doubt we want tourists to indulge in gaming. No doubt that is why we will allow these forms of gaming to be advertised abroad. Is this not hypocrisy?
  The object of the Bill is commendable in its desire to restrict the number of gaming establishments. Before an application comes to a licensing authority the people who intend to run such an establishment will be vetted. They will then be charged heavy registration fees and their takings will be heavily taxed. All this will be done to restrict the number of establishments and everything will be wonderfully respectable. Now the Government are going a step further and are saying, "We must be careful to protect the innocent and gullible public by preventing them from hearing about these establishments in advertisements." This is ridiculous.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Hon. Members have pointed out the com-
  62
  monsense and practical reasons why the new Clause should not be introduced. There is a Parliamentary point to consider here, which is that certain tests should be passed by the Government before the decision of a House of Commons Committee is overruled. To begin with, the Government should show that they have new arguments to support a Committee's decision being negatived. The Home Secretary has not adduced any new arguments to justify the reintroduction of this provision.
  It is a different matter if there has been a manoeuvre in Committee to secure an Opposition majority; for example, by Government supporters being locked out of the Committee room. In those circumstances, the Government would be justified to use their majority at a later stage to put the matter right. There is something to be said for reintroducing a provision deleted in Committee if the argument has been all one-sided, so that the question under consideration has become a party point. That cannot be said in this case.
  This provision was discussed in great detail by hon. Members of both sides of the Committee. While they were poles apart politically, common sense led them to take the right course, reflecting the view of the country. They considered that a provision of this sort was neither sensible nor practicable. The Home Secretary should now have stronger arguments to negative that decision and he should certainly not proceed merely in the knowledge that he has a majority at his command.
  In Committee, hon. Members crossed the "t"s and dotted the "i"s of every line in the Bill and, in addition to making other changes, removed this provision. The right hon. Gentleman is now reintroducing it in the knowledge that he can command the support of his supporters, the majority of whom were not members of the Committee. They will, therefore, be voting for him and the right hon. Gentleman will be relying on uninformed support. Perhaps this is why we are sometimes called Lobby fodder. It is sad that the standing of Parliament should be denigrated in this way. I trust that the good name of Parliament will be maintained and that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that back benchers are of value. Unless he can produce

  63
  new arguments to show why this provision should be reinstated, he should not negative such an important Commitmittee decision.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has reintroduced this provision. I see no reason why we should regard it as hypocritical to try to limit the commercial exploitation of gaming. I accept that how far we can achieve this may be challenged, but any step that we can take towards bringing about this limitation is to be welcomed, particularly in the present atmosphere of the country.
  Hon. Gentleman opposite answered their own question. When they have referred to the amount of commercial advertising, of premises for this purpose and how every effort is made to increase the number of people who make use of these facilities, they have explained precisely what we want to limit. This is not a question of prohibiting, but of limiting the knowledge of some of these practices.
  I also fully agree with those who say that bingo should be included in the provision. Bingo on its present commercial scale is very different from what hon. Gentlemen opposite have described it as. Anyone who has visited a major commercial bingo establishment must regard it as an operation providing anything but a quiet little game of bingo. Bingo, in its modern form, is a highly commercialised and greatly exploited type of gaming. I see no reason why it should be excluded from the provision. It is becoming another form of drug addiction. Hon. Members who are concerned with drug addiction must welcome the reintroduction of this provision. It is not hypocritical. It is a small but useful provision which should be in the Bill.
  Mr. Timothy Kitson: I could not agree less with the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). The remarks about a homely, family affair which my hon. Friends have used in relation to bingo were first used by the Home Secretary when speaking about bingo on the introduction of the Bill. The comments of hon. Gentlemen
  64
  opposite come ill when one considers that they are members of a party which is introducing a national lottery.
  Mr. Callaghan: Despite the somewhat unusual doctrine from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), I urge the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) to be clear about this. The voting in Committee was eight to seven. If that is not a case for asking the House of Commons to reconsider something, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Kitson: We improved the Bill a great deal in Committee. To reintroduce this provision is a terrible mistake. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that it will provide people with an opportunity to tout games of cards, bingo, chemin de fer, and so on? They will be able to say, "I know where you can have a game of cards tonight", because operators will not be able to advertise and people will not know where the establishments are.
  Therefore, people who want a game will get into the hands of an individual who takes them to a basement for a game of chemin de fer, or roulette, which is completely uncontrolled, an illegal game that is not operated by the Gaming Board, because they do not know where the devil to go.
  Here we are cleaning up gaming, making it quite respectable, and then inserting a Clause in the Bill which will help to drive it underground. I know that that is the last thing the Home Secretary wants, but he is creating that opportunity for those who want to take it underground. We all know that the Clause will not work. Touts will be able to take advantage of the situation. The larger organisations will have advantages over the smaller ones, because Mecca and Rank just have to show their name for people to know what is going on. The small bingo hall will not be in a position to compete with the better known organisations.
  We discussed at great length in Committee methods of getting round advertising restrictions. I told the Committee how cigarette manufacturers get round them by running races which are shown on television where their names appear. The larger organisations will be able to do this while the smaller organisations will not. It will not be possible to operate

  65
  what the Home Secretary intends to do. The Clause may give an opportunity for touts to try to run games of cards underground, which none of us want to see when we have succeeded in producing a Bill which has gone a long way to clear up gaming.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like almost every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, I very much regret the Home Secretary's decision to bring back the Clause. In speaking very briefly on it, I wish also to move formally the Amendment in the name of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we dispose of the new Clause.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the appropriate time it will be the Opposition's intention to do that, since I understand that Mr. Speaker has intimated that if that is done he will allow a separate Division on it.
  We must consider the Clause in the whole context of what we are trying to do in the Bill, which sets out to allow gaming and bingo to take place in this country provided the premises used are properly controlled. That aim is accepted by both sides of the House, and, therefore, I entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) when he said that to have that as the aim and then to prevent advertising of any kind is pure hypocrisy. What is really said in the Clause is that we are producing a Bill which accepts gaming as a lawful activity, but that whatever one does one must not mention that it exists in this country. This is hypocritical. It will not work, and it is not justified.
  How does one justify the prohibition of any form of advertising gaming, of bingo in particular, when the pools and racing openly advertise? It cannot be said that we are tempting people to take part for vast stakes, to gamble with the chance of winning vast sums. The amounts of money won on bingo, for example, nowhere near compete with the amounts won on the pools, which we see regularly advertised in the newspapers. How does this fit in even with the advertising of Premium Bonds, with a possible first prize of £25,000, or the advertising, as we
  66
  assume that it will be advertised, of the national lottery which the Government say they propose to recommend to the House?
  Therefore, I do not believe that there is any justification on the basis of the background of the Bill and the permission we give to the advertising of other forms of gambling to prevent advertising, certainly of bingo, and, on principle, there is no basis for preventing advertising of hard gaming.
  I wish to refer particularly to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). One would be foolish not to accept that the Home Secretary had some argument when he said that we did not want to encourage by seductive advertisements people to rush into gambling. But that cannot apply to an advertisement which merely states the name, address and the opening hours of clubs which we are permitting to exist. The Clause specifically allows for the advertising of the name but apparently not the address. I assume that this means that if one goes to Blackpool on holiday one can see a large advertisement in the newspaper saying something like "Rank in town", but unfortunately it cannot tell you where the Rank premises are. That is absolute nonsense.
  With respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), the Government have made considerable concessions in favour of bingo throughout the Bill in Committee. The Home Secretary has said that bingo is a harmless family game. The Government have permitted multiple membership of bingo clubs so that if one belongs to Rank, Mecca, Granada or whatever it may be in one town one is entitled to play bingo at that company's club at a seaside resort without rejoining when one goes on holiday. What is the justification for saying that one can announce its existence but not the address of its premises? Equally, as regards casinos, if one can say, "Crockford's are here", or words to that effect, why cannot one give its address? My hon. Friend's Amendment sets out reasonably the type of information which should be permitted to be given without encouraging people to rush to gambling.
  Where does the telephone directory stand? What about "What's On In

  67
  London"? If one can advertise every other form of club in London why cannot one advertise the address of a bingo club or casino? I do not believe that restrictions of this kind are in any way justified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) said that to negative a Committee decision was an important matter. I remind the Home Secretary of a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in Committee which I think was accepted by the then Under-Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend said that it was not so much a Committee as a working party of both sides of the House trying to improve the Bill.
  I suggest that it had three objects in mind: First, that gaming must be accepted as here and be permitted; secondly, that it should be strictly controlled; thirdly, that we should produce a Bill that is workable. I believe that part of succeeding in that end was the removal of what was then Clause 39, and I regret very much that the Home Secretary is now attempting to bring it back at this stage.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Callaghan: Often when I listen to arguments about a Clause I am supporting, I feel, "They are very good. Perhaps I was not right after all." But I have had the reverse feeling about the arguments made today against this Clause. The voting was eight to seven in Committee. It was fairly evenly balanced. All I can say now is that, if those who support advertising for gaming cannot put up better arguments than those they have put up today, I still feel I am right. It seemed to me that they were standing on so many different legs that it was almost impossible to trip them up. If one deals with one argument, they slide off on to another.
  First, we had the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) telling us that the innocent citizen who goes for a quiet game of cards will find himself lured into a subterranean den, where, amidst lowered lights, he will find himself playing an illegal game because he will not know where to find a legal game. Then the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that everyone will
  68
  know about it and it makes no difference. Both cannot be right.
  Mr. Kitson: The point I was making was that, if a man wants a game of cards, and does not know where to get one, he may go somewhere which is not licensed. After all, there are many places in the country where one can get a drink after hours. It is the same thing.
  Mr. Cailaghan: The hon. Gentleman is only repeating his argument. He has not added anything to it. Either everyone will know or they will not know. I take the view which, in other circumstances, I think most hon. Members would take—that advertising is a very potent weapon. People put large sums of money into it because they believe that it will bring them a return. I assume that to be true in gaming as it is true in advertising for things like Daz, or chocolate, or anything else. That being so, the only intention of advertising for gaming is to increase the number of people who game. If that is not the intention, I do not know what we are arguing about.
  The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has played a notable part in our proceedings. I acknowledge that he and his hon. Friends have helped the Government on the Bill very much, just as my hon. Friends have. This has not been a party matter—I agree with him there. But the Bill has twin objectives and he only named one.
  One of these objectives was to clean up gaming, but the second was to contain it. Perhaps that is not as important, but it is important. I take a social attitude on this matter. I believe that it is wrong for the House of Commons to encourage gaming. We may have to regulate it and try to straighten it out, but we should not encourage it by permitting advertising on a large and uncontrolled scale. That is my view. That is where I stand and that it what I believe.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney North (Mr. Weitzman) said that we want people to come here from abroad and that is why we permit advertising overseas. But I do not want anyone to come here just to game. I would not care if a tourist never came again if all he wanted to come for was to game. I

  69
  would not attempt to try to restrain anyone in this country from advertising abroad, whether in New York newspapers or anywhere else, but because I make no attempt to control advertising in foreign newspapers—it would be a fruitless attempt, anyway—we should not conclude from that that I should not seek, ill possible, to restrain advertising in British newspapers.
  Mr. Weitzman: What is the purpose of permitting advertising abroad specifically?
  Mr. Callaghan: I thought that I had answered that. My hon. and learned Friend is already arguing that I shall find it difficult to control advertising here. I do not want to take on the labours of Sisyphus. I would find it even more difficult to attempt to restrain advertising abroad. I do not want people to come here in order to gamble. Advertising will increase the knowledge of and the number of people who are likely to come here gaming. That, in my view, is not a good thing socially.
  The right hon. Member for Ashford says that gaming club proprietors would cheat—that was his word. Perhaps they will. If they do it will be because they think they are going to get material advantage out of it, because they think that they will be able to lure more people into gaming than they would do otherwise. I hope that they will not cheat. I agree that ingenious persons might try to get round this Clause, but I ask all gaming clubs to observe the spirit in which this Clause is being put on the Statute Book —that advertising of gaming is not regarded as socially desirable by Parliament. That is a simple stand. Whatever some clever people may cheat about, I believe that the great majority of gaming club proprietors will accept the Clause and will not attempt to evade it.
  Mr. Deedes: It is wrong to imply that those who get round the Clause will necessarily be cheating. If, for example —and his would be legitimate under subsection (4)—every gambling club in London decided to take a full-page advertisement in Life, how would the Home Secretary react? It would be a legitimate and effective step.
  Mr. Callaghan: They could do it.
  Mr. Deedes: It would not be cheating.
  Mr. Callaghan: No, it would not be cheating, but it would be opposed to the spirit of this debate.
  I think that a social attitude should be taken here. There are many things lawful, but not desirable. As the right hon. Gentleman and I agreed this morning, we cannot legislate to make people good but there is no reason why Parliament should not take a stand on an issue of this sort. I am asking Parliament to insert a Clause which, whatever its defects, says that we do not believe that encouraging people to game by advertising on a substantial scale is socially desirable. That is what I am arguing and that is what I stand by; and I am unshaken in my attitude.
  I turn now to why we should not allow gaming club proprietors to state the name and address and nature of their games and the hours of play. I can only state my view. I do not think that it is a good thing that these things should be constantly held before the public gaze. I hope that, after this Bill becomes law, a lot of the publicity will subside. I hope that there will not be as much publicity of gaming as there has been. Gaming is not a socially desirable way of spending leisure. Therefore, I do not accept the view that it would be a good thing to keep the club addresses, the games they play, their prizes and hours, before the public view. This is why I recommend the House to accept the new Clause, which will undoubtedly put prohibitions on advertising. I hope that, by this means, we shall be able to limit and curb the desire of those who do not now indulge in gaming to do so. If that is done, and they do not take part in gaming, it will be socially more healthy for the country.
  Mr. Buck: Why does the Home Secretary suggest that all his arguments apply with equal force to bingo, which in other spheres he has sought to regard—I think rightly—as very different from hard gaming?
  Mr. Callaghan: The Government have made concessions on gaming which go a little further than the family game I spoke about on Second Reading. In so far as it is a local game—and bingo is

  71
  very much a local game—I know of no one in the areas affected who does not know where the local bingo hall is. Therefore, I do not think that we need get ourselves into contortions about permitting advertisements for bingo which we do not permit for any other game.
  Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: The Home Sectary talks in a rather high falutin' way about the House deciding, giving the
  impression that everyone in the House votes in the way his heart and conscience wishes. Nothing of the sort. It is the Socialist Party which decides, and the Whips are put on to see that hon. Members opposite do what they are told—or else.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 143.

  Division No. 208.]

  AYES

  [5.12 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Freeson, Reginald

  Moyle, Roland

  Anderson, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Newens, Stan

  Archer, Peter

  Garrett, w. E.

  Norwood, Christopher

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Ogden, Eric

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Orme, Stanley

  Barnes, Michael

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Barnett, Joel

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Baxter, William

  Hamling, William

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Bence, Cyril

  Hannan, William

  Paget, R. T.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Binns, John

  Haseldine, Norman

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Blackburn, F.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Boston, Terence

  Hooley, Frank

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Boyden, James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

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

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Randall, Harry

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

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

  Rankin, John

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Cant, R. B.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Richard, Ivor

  Chapman, Donald

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Coe, Denis

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rose, Paul

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt, Hn. William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Luard, Evan

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McBride, Neil

  Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacColl, James

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  MacDermot, Niall

  Silverman, Julius

  Dempsey, James

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Slater, Joseph

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  McGuire, Michael

  Small, William

  Dickens, James

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Snow, Julian

  Doig, Peter

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stonehouse, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taverne, Dick

  Ellis, John

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

  Tinn, James

  English, Michael

  Manuel, Archie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ennals, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ensor, David

  Marquand, David

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wallace, George

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

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watklns, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Forrester, John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Winnick, David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Charles Grey.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grant, Anthony

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Astor, John

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

  Grieve, Percy

  Neave, Airey

  Awdry, Daniel

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Gurden, Harold

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nott, John

  Bell, Ronald

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biffen, John

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Peyton, John

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pounder, Rafton

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Burden, F. A.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pym, Francis

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hordern, Peter

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Royle, Anthony

  Corfield, F. V.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

  Crouch, David

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Joplin, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Stainton, Keith

  Dance, James

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col Sir M. (Ripon)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Lane, David

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

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

  Temple, John M.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Tilney, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Loveys, W. H.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lubbock, Eric

  van Straubenzee, W. N.

  Eden, Sir John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Emery, Peter

  Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Wall, Patrick

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McMaster, Stanley

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maginnis, John E.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maude, Angus

  Webster, David

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mawby, Ray

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wilton, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Foster, Sir John

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Miscampbell, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morgan Geraint (Denbigh)

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Gower, Raymond

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Amendment proposed: At end of subsection 3(c) insert:
  or,
  (d) the publication in any newspaper of a notice containing the following and no other particulars namely the name and address of the club, that it is licensed for gaming, the
  nature of the games played and the hours of play.'—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 196.

  Division No. 209.]

  AYES

  [5.20 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Astor, John

  Burden, F. A.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cary, Sir Robert

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

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Clark, Henry

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Balniel, Lord

  Clegg, Walter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Bell, Ronald

  Cooke, Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Biffen, John

  Cortield, F. V.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Costain, A. P.

  Eden, Sir John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Crouch, David

  Emery, Peter

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Coi.SirWalter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dance, dames

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lane, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Foster, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pym, Francis

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

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

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Lloyd Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Goodhew, Victor

  Loveys, W. H.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Gower, Raymond

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Grant, Anthony

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Royle, Anthony

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Grieve, Percy

  Mackenzic, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain

  Sharples, Richard

  Gurden, Harold

  McMaster, Stanley

  Shaw Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Silvester, Frederick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maude, Angus

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Mawby, Ray

  Speed, Keith

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stainton, Keith

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

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

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hiley, Joseph

  More, Jasper

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

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Temple, John M.

  Hordern, Peter

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Tilney, John

  Hornby, Richard

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Neave, Airey

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hunt, John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nott, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Webster, David

  Jopling, Michael

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pardoe, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Peyton, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pounder, Rafton

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  da Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

  Alldritt, Walter

  Dempsey, James

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Anderson, Donald

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Archer, Peter

  Dickens, James

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Doig, Peter

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

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lawson, George

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

  Ledger, Ron

  Barnes, Michael

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Barnett, Joel

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Baxter, William

  Ellis, John

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Bence, Cyril

  English, Michael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ennals, David

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Binns, John

  Ensor, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bishop, E. S.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Luard, Evan

  Blackburn, F.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McBride, Neil

  Boston, Terence

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacColl, James

  Boyden, James

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Forrester, John

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Bradley, Tom

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McGuire, Michael

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

  Freeson, Reginald

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Buchan, Norman

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Manuel, Archie

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Marquand David

  Chapman, Donald

  Hamling, William

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Coe, Denis

  Hannan, William

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Coleman, Donald

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Concannon, J. D.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Millan, Bruce

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hattersley, Roy

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

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Haffer, Eric S.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Moyle, Roland

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Newens, Stan

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  76

  77

  Ogden, Eric

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Symonds, J. B.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Richard, Ivor

  Taverne, Dick

  Orme, Stanley

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tinn, James

  Oswald, Thomas

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Urwin, T. W.

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

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

  Varley, Eric G.

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Paget, R. T.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Wallace, George

  Palmer, Arthur

  Rose, Paul

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Ryan, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Sheldon, Robert

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprldd)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Pentland, Norman

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Silverman, Julius

  Winnick, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Slater, Joseph

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Probert, Arthur

  Small, William

  Woof, Robert

  Randall, Harry

  Snow, Julian

  Rankin, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rees, Merlyn

  Stonehouse, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO GAMING FOR PRIZES
  (1)This section applies to any gaming which (being gaming to which Part II of this Act applies) is gaming for prizes in respect of which the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled.
  (2) Those conditions are that—

  (a) the amount paid by any person for any one chance to win a prize does not exceed one shilling;

  (b) the aggregate amount taken by way of the sale of chances in any one determination of winners (if any) of prizes does not exceed fifty shillings, and the sale of those chances and the declaration of the result take place on the same day and on the premises on which, and at the time when, the game is played;

  (c) no money prize exceeding one shilling is distributed or offered;

  (d) the winning of, or the purchase of a chance to win, a prize does not entitle any person (whether subject to a further payment by him or not) to any further opportunity to win money or money's worth by taking part in any other gaming or in any lottery; and

  (e) the aggregate amount or value of the prizes on any one determination of winners does not exceed fifty shillings.

  (3)Sections 13 and 14 of this Act shall not have effect in relation to any gaming to which this section applies which takes place on premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force.
  (4)Where any gaming to which this section applies lakes place on any bingo club premises, section 17 of this Act shall not have effect so as to prevent persons under eighteen from being present in any room on those premises while any such gaming takes place there,
  78
  if they do not take part in the gaming as players.
  (5)Where on the grant or renewal of a licence under this Act in respect of any premises the licensing authority impose restrictions under paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 to this Act whereby gaming on those premises is limited to a particular game or games, those restrictions, in so far as they so limit the gaming, shall not have effect in relation to any gaming to which this section applies.
  (6)Where a game of bingo is played for prizes on any bingo club premises, and constitutes gaming to which this section applies, the prizes won in that game shall be disregarded for the purposes of section 20(4) of this Act.
  (7)No account shall be taken of subsection (5) of this section for the purpose of determining—

  (a) whether a club is one to which section 20 of this Act applies, or

  (b) whether any premises are bingo club premises, or

  (c) whether, for the purposes of Schedule 2 to this Act, a licence under this Act is a bingo club licence.

  (8) The Secretary of State may by order direct that any paragraph of subsection (2) of this section which is specified in the order and which specifies a sum shall have effect as if, for that sum, there were substituted such other sum as may be specified in the order.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This gives licensed gaming clubs the right to indulge in gaming for small prizes on conditions parallel to those under which, by virtue of Section 49 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, as amended by Schedule 11 to the Bill,

  79
  such gaming may be provided, for example, by travelling showmen or at pleasure grounds and amusement arcades on permit from the local authority.
  The right of a licensed club to provide this gaming is made absolute. It cannot be precluded by any conditions attached to a licence by the justices. Where, for instance, they issue a bingo club licence, the club concerned may indulge in gaming of this type in addition to bingo without losing any privileges which attach to a licence under Clause 20. Where the conditions of the new Clause are observed, they will operate to the exclusion of Clauses 13 and 14; that is to say, games of unequal chance may be played and charges made to the players irrespective of any restrictions required by or under those provisions.
  I trust that the House will agree that it would be highly illogical that a club licensed for commercial gaming of a serious kind should be prevented from diversifying its activities as the bingo clubs often wish to do by providing occasional light-hearted amusements of the fairground type with strictly limited prizes. As it now stands, the Bill is meant to allow this, but the method that it adopts in Schedule 11 is to bring the licensed gaming clubs within the scope of Section 49 of the 1963 Act, thus entitling them to provide "amusements with prizes" under the terms of that Section, just as amusement arcades may now, but in the clubs' case without having to get a permit.
  Many hon. Members will be aware that the argumentation in the case of Fox v. Adamson has, however, thrown doubt on the efficacy of this approach. It suggests that a game like bingo could not be played on the same premises under two different codes of law, sometimes in the form of "amusements with prizes" under Section 49 of the 1963 Act, and at other times in the form of gaming under Part II of this Bill.
  The remedy which is adopted in the new Clause is to allow licensed clubs the equivalent of " amusements with prizes " but, as a variety of gaming—"gaming for prizes"—treated under Part II. This not only gets over the legal difficulty but has other advantages. In particular, it attracts the operation of Clause 12 of the Bill, thus confining participation in this form of gaming to members of the
  80
  club and their bona fide guests. It also attracts the penalty provisions of Clause 22 and Schedule 2, thus making breaches of the conditions punishable not merely by court proceedings but also by cancellation of the licence, at the discretion of the licensing justices. This may also be followed by the withdrawal by the Gaming Board of all or any of the certificates issued to the licence holder.
  I do not think that I need go on to deal in detail with the subsections, but if comments are made by any hon. Members, I shall be very willing to do so.
  Mr. Buck: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the purpose of the new Clause. At this stage, perhaps I might add that I am grateful to him for having allowed me to receive certain information through his Department which has caused me to understand some of the more technical Clauses to be moved today more readily than might otherwise have been the case.
  As I understand it, the most significant part of the new Clause makes it clear that, in practice, bingo clubs can provide amusements with prizes within the same premises. On the whole, I am sure that it is acceptable to the House. However, there is some consternation among members of the Amusement Caterers Association about it, who feel that what they regard as this further concession to bingo halls and those having licensed bingo premises may be harmful to those who run arcades and so forth. But I have not had strenuous representations on that score, and no doubt the new Clause will be acceptable to those who operate within these spheres generally.
  I welcome the Clause because of the enforceability point. Only yesterday, I was discussing various aspects of the Bill with those who have detailed knowledge of the operation of bingo halls and amusement arcades, who pointed out to me that in many bingo halls this has been going on for some time, there has not been proper enforcement, and the Clause represents a recognition of the state of affairs in many parts of the country already. It permits bingo halls to have gaming of a lesser character under the same roof, but there is no question of allowing in bingo halls hard gaming combined with bingo. That should be made

  81
  clear, because inevitably, the hon. Gentleman explained the Clause in somewhat technical language, which could not be avoided in a Clause of this character.
  The Clause is eminently sensible. The technical side of enforceability follows the pattern found elsewhere in the Bill, and I find it totally acceptable.
  Mr. Weitzman: I am grateful to the Government for having brought in the new Clause, because it cures a curious anomaly in the 1963 Act, and I raised the point in Committee. In Fox. v. Adamson, there was a clear decision that where amusements with prizes were offered in a bingo hall, the playing of bingo became illegal. I wonder if the Government will now do something about those who have been fined as a result of this so-called offence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I have to announce a slight change in Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of Amendments. New Clause 3 will not now be moved, but it can be taken for debate with New Clause 5 and Government Amendments Nos. 100 and 101.
  Accordingly, we now come to new Clause 4.

New Clause 4

  USE OF CLUB PREMISES FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN GAMING
  Notwithstanding anything in Section 21 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall not make regulations requiring a licensing authority to refuse to grant or renew a licence under Part II of this Act to any club on the grounds that the premises are used for purposes other than gaming.—[Mr. Carlisle.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  This new Clause goes to the heart of Part II of the Bill and deals with a matter which caused considerable lengthy debate in Committee; that is, the type of club which the Home Secretary foresees being permitted to have a licence under the Bill, and particularly the type of regulations which he proposes to make
  82
  which would prevent certain types of clubs getting licences.
  It may be convenient to remind the House of the background of this new Clause. On Second Reading the Home Secretary said:
  "My object will be to exclude gaming altogether from night clubs and similar clubs and establishments, and substantially to restrict the number of clubs specialising in gaming …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1171.]
  I want to refer to the words, "to exclude gaming altogether from night clubs and similar clubs and establishments". It is clear from what the Home Secretary said then, and, indeed, in Committee, that his intention was to pass regulations which would prevent gaming licences being obtained by clubs that have other activities than gaming.
  This matter was raised first by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) during Committee stage when he attempted to move a Clause which had a similar intention, although the wording was slightly different. As a result of the debate on that Clause the then Parliamentary Secretary slightly changed his attitude towards the matter. In Committee he said that he had noted hon. Members' speeches, he had recognised that there was a difficult problem, and that he thought it right, in the light of those speeches, that the Government should not press on the Committee, or indeed on the House, a final decision. He went on to say that the intention of the Government was that they would seek the advice of the Gaming Board and that they would not frame their regulations until the Gaming Board had given that advice. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman quite rightly made it clear, because he did not wish in any way to mislead the Committee, that it might well be that, as a result of that advice, the Home Secretary would still come before the House with regulations which would specifically prevent the issue of a licence to any club which had facilities other than pure gaming.
  The object of the new Clause is to give Parliament the opportunity to write into the Bill a statement that the Home Secretary shall not, under his powers under Clause 21 of the Bill, make regulations requiring licensing justices to refuse to

  83
  grant a licence merely on the ground that the club has other facilities. This is the substantial difference between this new Clause and the Clause moved by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newing-ton and Hackney, North.
  The object of his Clause was that the Home Secretary should specifically tell the licensing justices that they should not refuse a licence if the club had other facilities. We are not saying that he should not dictate to the licensing justices. They would still have the power to license or not license any club as they thought fit. All we are saying is that the Home Secretary should not exclude from their area of consideration those clubs, which, for simplicity's sake, were regarded as mixed clubs during Committee stage, where some other activity than gaming applies. All hon. Members on the Committee, other than the Government spokesman, felt that it would be wrong for the Home Secretary to make an arbitrary decision that no club could have a licence if other facilities than gaming were provided.
  5.45 p.m.
  I will give two examples. The first is the cabaret type of club which is prevalent in the North-West and the North-East of England. The second is the Playboy type of club where at the moment in separate rooms wholly separate facilities on the basis of dancing and things of that nature are provided as well as gaming but still under the one club roof. I can only repeat what I said on Second Reading. I do not believe that there is anything socially more objectionable in allowing gaming to occur in clubs which have other facilities than to permit pure gaming clubs. My feeling is that those clubs which have other facilities are in many ways socially more desirable than purely gaming establishments.
  I will deal, first, with the cabaret clubs, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides have knowledge of those and will have contributions to make. There is no doubt that in the North of England there are many clubs which, on a Saturday night, provide cabaret entertainment of a high standard, much of which is provided and paid for because the clubs also make
  84
  money on gaming. The proprietors of those clubs seem convinced that, in the absence of being permitted to continue their gaming activities, they would not be able to afford the type of artistes and the standard of entertainment which is now provided.
  Although many of my hon. Friends may not agree, I think that the Home Secretary would be on very strong ground if he said, "Never in the same room." There is a lot to be said for keeping the gaming not only not in the same room as the cabaret but not in the same room as the bar. But there is no justification for saying that one cannot have a well-run casino gaming room merely because one also provides other entertainment for the same or other members of the same family. It would be stupid to suggest that hard gaming is a harmless family activity. Nevertheless, one accepts and knows that the kind of clubs one is talking about in the North of England provide much family entertainment on a Saturday night through their cabaret media.
  I believe that the real attitude we should take on this part of the Bill was something expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) during the debate on this part of the Bill when he said that surely the important thing was that we should retain a high standard of club and, provided we only licensed clubs which were of a high standard, what on earth difference did it make whether they were solely gaming clubs or were gaming clubs with other facilities as well.
  I believe that the Amendments to the Bill which we are to discuss later and which I am sure will be welcomed by practically everyone in the House, whereby the Government have decided that before any premises can get a licence they must get a certificate of approval from the Board without any right of appeal from that arbitrary decision, should ensure that any club that gets a licence, having first secured a certificate of approval and gone successfully through the licensing process before the licensing justices, must be a club of high standard. If it is a club of high standard, I do not see why we should, by regulation, prevent or attempt to prevent it having a licence to carry on gaming merely because it provides other facilities as well.

  85
  Leaving aside cabaret clubs on which other hon. Gentlemen may be better able to speak from a constituency viewpoint than I am, I come back to the general principle of those clubs which perhaps have gaming on one floor and dancing on another. Here I am bound to repeat the name of the Playboy Club, although I got a highly abusive letter from someone who complained about hon. Members who advertise only American and not British gaming institutions. I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were in the Committee had the opportunity of visiting some of these places. If gaming can be reasonably innocent, then I believe it is no less innocent in those clubs which have other facilities, with gaming taking place on a floor apart, than it is in clubs where gaming only is being carried on. It would be a great pity if a club which provided other facilities besides gaming were to be prevented from providing those other facilities, or compelled to throw out that part of the club which perhaps subsidises its other facilities.
  During the Committee stage, the proposals of the Government were opposed by practically everybody, and it was as a result of that that the Government in part gave way. I hope that now they will give way still further and accept this new Clause and agree not to try, by regulation, to prevent clubs of this kind having the right, at least, to apply for a licence.
  Mr. Oakes: As on the last new Clause I was consistent with what I said and did in Committee, so in this new Clause I shall be equally consistent with what I said upstairs.
  I would again stress to my right hon. Friend the complete difference between clubs of this nature, cabaret clubs in the provinces and, in particular, those in the North of England, and the type of clubs I am quite certain my right hon. Friend envisages which exist in the Metropolitan area. In most towns in the North we have very little live entertainment. There was none at all for years after the theatres had closed down as a result of lack of support and because artistes were concentrated in London.
  Clubs were set up and made money, some of it from their gaming activities; but the money they made from those activities, to the credit of the owners of
  86
  those clubs, was used to build better premises, and to this day it is being used to bring live high-class entertainment into provincial towns. These clubs do not make money in the sense that London clubs do out of gaming. They use the profits from gaming to subsidise the entertainment they are providing, often the only live entertainment being provided in the area.
  The money comes from drinks sold at the bar. It is in this way that most of the clubs make profits. They have spent vast sums of money in building excellent clubs and providing facilities which the brewers have never thought of providing, hence the great number of people who go to clubs and the less who go to the pubs.
  I believe that it would be quite wrong, with no reason having been given in Committee—I do not know whether any reason can be given to the House today —to say that because entertainment is provided on those club premises all the capital that has been tied up in the clubs must disappear, that, therefore, the live entertainment must disappear and that, virtually, the clubs must close. My right hon. Friend may say that there is no need for a club to close, but if a club is not a financial success it is bound to close. These clubs have to nay very high rates to get top artistes to come out of the Metropolitan area and to the provinces. For that reason the clubs must have a source of money and the gaming tables in the clubs are that source.
  With regard to the kind of gaming that takes place in these clubs, as was said upstairs—and I believe that hon. Members on both sides will reinforce this— while it may not be quite a harmless family game of bingo it is not far short of it. This is not gaming on a vast scale where hundreds or thousands of pounds change hands during the course of the night and where someone may come out ruined. The family go along to these clubs and it may be that in the course of the evening father may have a spin on the roulette wheel, but little beyond that.
  The clubs are most careful in limiting the amount of stakes in the gaming room because they must rely on those people coming back. This is not London. This is a provincial town and it may well be the same people coming to the club week

  87
  after week. If they were to find that they were leaving the club with no money, that all the housekeeping money had gone, they would stop going to the club. That would be bad business for the club. It does not happen.
  As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, the former Under-Secretary in Committee conceded that at least the Gaming Board would be consulted on this before any action was taken with regard to regulations. That is a good thing. Even better is an Amendment which I did not notice when it was made upstairs to Schedule 2, paragraph 23, on page 50 of the amended Bill, providing that
  "Subject to the next folowing sub-paragraph,"—
  which relates only to bingo clubs—
  "on granting or renewing a licence under this Act the licensing authority (whether they impose any restrictions under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph or not) may impose restrictions limiting the purposes, other than gaming, for which, while the licence is in force, the relevant premises may be used, either generally or at such times as may be specified in the restrictions."
  Could that be paving the way—I hope it is—for the Gaming Board not to have to make a blanket refusal of a licence to any club where entertainment takes place, but to be able itself to pick and choose whether or not a club is a good and well run one, which is the Board's job? No one objects to the cabaret club which is not completely legal and is not abiding by the rules, failing to get a licence. But I and my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite object to the refusal of a licence solely on the ground that entertainment takes place within the club premises.
  Like the hon. Member for Runcorn, I would entirely agree that the gaming facilities of a club should be in a separate room, perhaps on a separate floor, away from where the cabaret and drinking is going on. In my experience, this is invariably the case. Certainly, the gaming is in a room separate from the cabaret. Therefore, as far as the new Clause is concerned, I am keeping an open mind, because I do not know what my right hon. Friend will say at the end.
  I would like him to bear very much in mind that hon. Members on all sides of the House from the provinces who
  88
  have experience of this type of club can assure him that in the main they are harmless in respect of the vice that attaches to gaming; but much more important, they have employed the profits they have gained from gaming to bring entertainment to areas which otherwise would not have had it, and in terms of both entertainment and premises have brightened up towns.
  I would like my right hon. Friend to regard most carefully what was said by the hon. Member for Runcorn. Whether we accept the Clause depends on what my right hon. Friend says in reply to the debate.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Weitzman: As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, I raised this point in Committee in a somewhat different form. I should like to echo something that was said by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) when we debated the first new Clause. It seems curious that when a Bill is committed to a Committee, and that Committee goes through the Bill line by line, and word by word, and the whole Committee, apart from the then Under-Secretary of State, is in favour of the principle behind an Amendment, the Government should not say, "We have a new Clause which represents what the Committee as a whole agree to, and, therefore, we shall accept the principle behind it, whether in its present form or some other form". It is important from the point of view of the working of Parliament that that should be done.
  Secondly, it is wrong to say that what we ought to establish here is a monopoly of gaming clubs, that is, that we should give a licence to gaming clubs which carry on only gaming, because those words establish a monopoly. Surely it is wrong to grant a licence to a club which is concerned only with gaming? I do not want to repeat the powerful arguments which have been put forward today. There are cabaret clubs, and other clubs, part of whose activities consist of gaming, and where the profits from the gaming are used largely to provide good entertainment by way of cabarets. Why should not that be so? I could not understand my right hon. Friend's attitude during the Second Reading debate when he said that he was going to see that clubs, apart from gaming clubs, were

  89
  not allowed to do any gaming. On the face of it, that seems to be wrong.
  I rather like the wording of the Clause, because it seems to put the matter very clearly. An application is made for a gaming licence. The machinery of the Board is available to vet the bona fides of the applicant. That is the first stile over which the applicant has to get. Having got over it the matter then proceeds to the licensing justices who have power to inquire whether, in all the circumstances, it is proper to grant a licence.
  The Clause says that no regulations shall be made
  "requiring a licensing authority to refuse to grant or renew a licence under Part II of this Act to any club on the grounds that the premises are used for purposes other than gaming."
  All the circumstances will be before the justices. They will know the constitution of the club. They will know the premises. They will know that the application has been vetted by the Board. They will go into the matter and consider whether, in the circumstances, it is proper to grant a licence. I cannot see how it can be said to be unreasonable to agree to a preposition of that kind.
  I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause, or at any rate agree to insert a provision along the lines of it.
  Mr. Deedes: I support the Clause. It is early days in which to reach a final decision on this matter. This is one of the more dangerous parts of the Bill, because we are inviting ourselves to make one of those judgments which, in the end, is nearly always proved to be faulty.
  I have no local interest in a cabaret club, but there is another side to the coin. It may be said that the money acquired by these means ought not to be used to draw in talent, which then becomes unavailable anywhere else, from the diminishing music-hall scene. The case has been made that a lot of talent is drawn into the cabaret club circle which can afford prices which no one else can afford because of the manner in which it is financed, and that this leads to the detriment of entertainment elsewhere. I do not press the matter, because I have no local interest in cabaret clubs.
  90
  It is open to question whether the gaming club which exists for gaming only, with a minimum of facilities for refreshment or other amusement, is necessarily less dangerous or less squalid than the sort of establishment which some of my hon. Friends would like to see. Some of us have had the experience during recent weeks of visiting a wide variety of establishments. The ones which chilled my blood were those in which people were there for gaming, and for no other reason. Those in which people sit around a shoe or wheel without any other form of comfort or interest are those which from time to time bring me round to the Home Secretary's side. I hope, therefore, that he will weigh carefully whether that is the sort of establishment with which he wants to end up.
  If the right hon. Gentleman tries to impose restrictions and goes contrary to the sense of the Clause, he must consider what will happen when some of these establishments seek to provide facilities of their own. I raised this point in Committee. What limit will be imposed on the comforts which gaming clubs can offer to their customers as an added inducement to go there, and how close will it be possible to get to the night club style of establishment by adding amenities to the wheel and shoe? This is something which the Board will have to regulate, but before we come to a final decision let us bear in mind that the thing may not work out quite as we hope now.
  The evil which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind of people going out for an evening's entertainment and being lured into a form of gaming which they neither expected before they went out, nor desire to participate in when they enter the premises, can be exaggerated. Why not allow the Board to build up a little experience in this matter before we reach any irrevocable decision? Nearly everything that has been said on this matter both here and in Committee is based on very little evidence. What little we have seen does not amount to experience worthy of the name. After six months or a year the Board will have a much clearer view of whether there are evils involved, and whether there ought to be restrictions and regulations.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that approach.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) I, too, have a fair record of consistency in this rather limited but important matter, and I hope to be consistent today. The Home Secretary knows my views. I expressed them on Second Reading, and also with moderate eloquence in Committee upstairs. I ask him not to be too swayed by the London argument, because clubs in the North-West, particularly Lancashire, are very different. The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that going to a cabaret club has become a regular pattern of life for ordinary decent families in the North-West. I would not like these clubs, which provide good live entertainment in an area where there is not just a dearth of it but where the music hall and live theatre are non-existent, replaced because of a rigid Clause about hard gaming establishments. I fear that that would happen.
  I agree that the gaming facilities of such a club should be completely separate, but the vast majority of people who go to them go to see the cabaret and not to gamble. My right hon. Friend is wrong if he believes that, because there is cabaret and gaming in the same club, people who gamble modestly will be made into compulsive and addicted gamblers. There is no evidence that that would happen.
  The new Clause has merit and I ask him not to be too rigid in his interpretation. I will listen to him very carefully.
  Mr. Paget: It would be possible to make a long list of absurd things which one would wish to restrain the Minister from doing, but I can see no point in it. I cannot imagine that any Home Secretary would be foolish enough to put into Clause 21 a general prohibition about a gambling club ever being used for any other purpose, because that would be ridiculous—
  Mr. Hogg: But the trouble is that it was precisely this which the right hon. Gentleman at least gave us the impression on Second Reading that he would do. This is why we wish to restrain him from doing so or at least that he should undertake not to do so.
  Mr. Paget: But it is not-in the Bill now and I did not understand my right hon. Friend to mean that.
  92
  Of course one must apply one's common sense to this and realise how different the circumstances may be. On the one hand, it would be highly undesirable if the cabaret artistes took people to the gaming tables and sat beside them, as is often done in France, with girls acting as hostesses or performers to persuade people to gamble. It would also be undesirable to restrain northern clubs, which are having perfectly proper cabarets, from doing what is the best thing they do.
  6.15 p.m.
  We are all claiming consistency with our remarks in Committee and I must fall in with that, although I see no particular wisdom in not changing one's mind after hearing further arguments. My line in Committee, which I am not yet persuaded was wrong, was that the only rule which my right hon. Friend need make is that the club should abide by the rules approved for it by the Board, and that the Board would give its certificate of approval on the basis of those rules, which would include the club's objectives, perhaps cabaret, as well as limitations as to where on the premises it would be held.
  If the arrangements met the Board's approval, which would have my right hon. Friend's confidence, it would be all right. If they did not, it would be all wrong. But surely we do not want a general provision under Clause 21 applying everywhere, to all clubs. Let us leave this to the Board. We should let the rules of each club be part of its application for approval and let them set out what the club proposes to do. If they are approved and abided by, they should, also have my right hon. Friend's approval.
  Mr. Callaghan: The value of the Committee stage is that it enables hon. Members to think again. I have been influenced by some of the arguments. I repudiate once again the odd constitutional doctrine which has taken root on both sides this afternoon that, because something was decided in Committee, or the Committee expressed a certain view, the House itself cannot take a different one. If that were so, we might as well get rid of most of the Report stage, whose object is to allow Members to think again and the whole House to express its view.

  93
  I know that there is a great passion for reforming all our institutions, but we will not do so to the point of saying that everything done in Committee should be regarded as sacrosanct for ever, because that would be rubbish—
  Sir S. McAdden: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that our point was that, in Committee, all hon. Members are present, hear the discussion and vote, whereas on Report only a handful of Members attend, they do not hear the discussion and they vote without having heard it. That is not an expression of Parliament's will.
  Mr. Callaghan: With respect, those hon. Members present today are the same ones as; were in Committee. It is clear that the great majority of the House has complete confidence in the Government's wisdom in this matter, and, until they express themselves to the contrary, a majority has always been the best argument in these matters.
  As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, this goes to the heart of the issue of whether hard gaming should be combined with cabaret or other entertainment. As I said on Second Reading, I confess to a very strong repugnance that it should be so combined. It is an advantage, because, if the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) went to a strict gaming club which was nothing else and felt repelled by the atmosphere, that would be a guarantee that he was not likely to return, whereas if he were seduced by the top-class cabaret as well, he might fall a victim and I do not want to lose him to anything of that sort, at least until he is defeated at the next election.
  So I confess to a prejudice for having a relatively small core of hard gaming clubs, because hard gaming is an evil. It brings with it blackmail, extortion and, in the extreme case, murder. There is no avoiding this issue. I therefore do not wish, as long as I am in this office to encourage people to indulge in hard gaming.
  I said that I had been influenced by what had been said. I have been influenced to the extent that there are a number of institutions—the clubs in the North are a classic case—where gaming is used to subsidise high-class cabaret
  94
  shows and is subsidiary to the shows. There is nothing that I want to say against the people of the North. Indeed, I could say a lot for them. They live, work and play hard and they deserve everything that they get in this sphere. I mention them because this is a particular phenomenon of the North and one that I want to take into account.
  Before doing so, however, I return to the fact that scarcely anything has contributed more to the popularity of hard gaming such as roulette, craps and blackjack than their adoption by the clubs. More people have been introduced to hard gaming through cabaret clubs than in any other way—people who previously had no idea what these things were about—and this is supported by strong arguments of social policy, irrespective of practical points of view. It is this which brought the Council of Churches on Gambling down on the side of the argument for restriction. A number of these cabaret clubs—and they are not all as innocent as is sometimes made out—have been so intent on increasing profits from the tables that it has become the custom to play roulette not with just one zero, but with two, and to provide games like boule with four or five zeros. This is extortion, but the clubs claim that it is essential if the cabaret is to survive.
  I want to hold a balance in this position. We must be careful how far we allow the clubs to go in this matter. I understand that these cabaret clubs are attracting a very high standard and quality of artist and are charging in some cases absolutely minimal entrance fees such as Is. or 2s. for the whole evening. It is difficult to believe that people would not be prepared to pay more for an evening's entertainment by well-known artistes. If they are not, then that is not a very good argument for saying that there is such a compelling demand. I invite the House to hold a balance in this matter.
  I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Runcorn. If we accepted the new Clause which he moved we would be doing what I was asked not to do, which is to prejudge the issue. I do not press the House to judge the issue finally tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) should remember that under Clause 49(3) I am empowered to make different regulations

  95
  for different areas. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) asked me not to be over-influenced by London. I urge them to remember that under that provision
  "Any power to make regulations under this Act may be exercised so as to make different provision for different areas or in relation to different cases or different circumstances to which the power is applicable."
  There is flexibility in the Measure and I would like to see consideration given to this question of the need for flexibility. Thus, for the reasons I have given, I do not wish to accept the new Clause because to do so would be to prejudge the issue. But in the light of the discussion which has taken place, I repeat what was said in a guarded form in Committee by the Under Secretary; I would like the Gaming Board to go into the whole question, to balance the arguments, some of which I have adduced today, about the need for this provision, to examine it in depth and then to advise me, after which 1 shall be able to decide the best regulations, which would then, at that stage, come before Parliament.
  This would enable the considerations which have been advanced by hon. Members on both sides to be taken into account. It would also enable me to return to the House with the advantage of the Gaming Board's full consideration of the social and practical issues involved. I hope that the House will be willing to accept this as a way of meeting some of the legitimate criticisms that have been made, since I fear that I cannot ask the House to accept the new Clause.
  Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the Home Secretary has gone as far as he has towards meeting a point of view with which, I fear, he is somewhat out of sympathy and about which I wish to comment further. Had he been a little more forthcoming I would have felt less hesitation about the matter, because I appreciate that there are technical arguments against a new Clause of this kind, which would limit the power of regulations. I was disturbed by the general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks because I was alarmed by his approach. I have no doubt about his sincerity, but I have considerable disquiet about the extent of his naivety.
  96
  I do not think that I take a particularly less social attitude—a cosy and imprecise phrase which the right hon. Gentleman constantly uses on these occasions—than does the Home Secretary. I regard gambling as irrational and I have always tried to discourage people from doing it. In so far as I have been able to influence my family, I have virtually prevented them from doing it. I would always do the same for other people.
  I have reached two baffling conclusions in the matter of gambling and they have a close bearing on the subject of the new Clause. The first is that the only way of controlling it is by licensing and taxing it, with a board in control. The second is that if one wants to get rid of blackmail, extortion and murder—the three emotive words the Horte Secritaly threw into the pool—one must forget, once and for all, one's subjective, moral convictions about gambling as gambling and put the matter under a form of control, which is the aim of the Bill.
  It is because I have these convictions that 1 am profoundly disturbed about the approach which the Home Secretary makes to this question of the so-called mixed club. The word "hypocrisy" has been used a few times today. Continental peoples tend to charge the British public and Parliament with hypocrisy very much because of their attitude to this subject of gambling. I do not think that it is hypocrisy. It is, rather, naivety. We begin by coming to conclusions that we cannot altogether prevent smoking, drinking or perhaps other things which may or may not be thought to be immoral— and in this class gambling is normally included—and then, having decided to allow it, we make it as unpleasant as possible, so we think. The result is that the public-house produces only beer, that the betting shop produces only betting and that the gambling establishment apparently produces only gambling, and not " bunnies " as well. The result is that one gets a kind of hard-faced viciousness to which my right hon. Friend referred, with none of the civilising influences of music or even food, which, one would think, might temper the viciousness of the activity.
  6.30 p.m.
  I personally, although I think my own attitude is as strongly antagonistic to gambling as is the Home Secretary's,

  97
  view this with profound disquiet. I was touched not a little by the fact that in common with Archbishop Lord Fisher of Lambeth I was myself selected by the promoters of the Playboy Club for foundation membership. Unlike the former Primate, I did not write to The Times in protest, because I thought that it was something of a compliment, if not to my virtue at least to my virility, but I did not actually take that membership up.
  However, I must say that, at any rate, in principle, I am quite unable to see that the Playboy Club is inherently more vicious than, say, Crockford's, or one of the other ones. I cannot see why the Home Secretary should take this view. On the contrary, my general approach to this matter is that we should see what our experience of this kind of club may be.
  If the Home Secretary, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, said simply that he was proposing to think about it again in the light of his prejudices I should have unhesitatingly advised this side of the House to divide in favour of this new Clause. I am rather moved by the fact that he seems to recognise that he is not, after all, the right man to decide this kind of thing and that he proposes, so he has informed the House, to leave it to the Board. Well, that is some sign of grace—
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not propose to leave it to the Board. I said I would consult the Board, and, obviously, take its advice, but the final decision must remain with me. I promise the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I am not naive, but we may see, as any Home Secretary has seen, the consequences, and the evil consequences, which underlie this gambling. This must be constantly in the mind of every Member in the Chamber when considering this subject.
  Mr. Hogg: I think not the least naive thing about the Home Secretary is his refusal to believe that those who differ from him have the same knowledge of social conditions as he. I think that the mistake he is making, if he will allow me to say so, is in not realising that the object of the Bill, if it is successful, is precisely to cut out, by a close type of control, the kind of evils to which he is referring. I admit that those evils
  98
  have existed in the past. I have already, on Second Reading and in numerous debates in Committee, described why, I think, those evils have arisen.
  The evils to which the Home Secretary refers, blackmail, extortion, and even violence and murder, are due precisely to the fact that in the past we have either outlawed gaming altogether, which meant that we put it into the hands, virtually, of the criminal classes, who enforce a kind of gangster law of their own, or, alternatively, have done what the 1963 Bill did, left them with the necessity of strong-arm methods, and have not adopted the method, which the Bill rightly adopts, of control subject to licence, and, I hope, subsequently, of sufficiently high taxation to limit, both to the punter and to the promoter of the gambling club, the profitability of the exercise.
  Once we have done that we must have the courage to allow the proposals made in a Bill of this kind some opportunity for success. The trouble with the Home Secretary is that he never will have the courage of his convictions in this matter and always tries to paint the lily with some kind of prohibitions which, in the nature of things, will only repeat the mistakes which we have made in the past and which we are trying to get out of.
  I was saying, when the right hon. Gentleman—courteously, of course—interrupted me, that he had seemed to me to betray some sign of grace towards the end of his speech in recognising that, as it were, he does not propose to be the best judge of this matter, but proposes to take the advice of the Board, advice which the Board will tender to him after a certain amount of experience and not simply from a priori thinking. This, above all, is a matter in which a priori thinking ought to be avoided and experience ought to be our guide as to what we do in the future, which is precisely why we on this side of the House are anxious to give the Board the maximum degree of power, and rejoice that the Home Secretary has, to some extent at any rate, yielded to our persuasion, because he has said that he proposes to take the advice of the Board. While I recognise that the legal responsibility must, under the framework of the Bill, remain with him, I hope that he will take the Board's advice and not simply receive it.

  99
  Because the right hon. Gentleman said that, my own disposition is that we accept that assurance, because I can see that there are technical reasons against this new Clause, of the kind which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said—one can draw up a list of silly things we do not want to do and then prohibit the Home Secretary from not doing them. That, I agree, would be contemptuous of the Government and, perhaps, bad from the point of view of legislation, because our list would never be wholly exhaustive.
  I rejoice at the small signs of grace which the Home Secretary has shown, and I hope that, after some experience of the operation, he will be less Puritan in his outlook, and believe that those who do not take the view that he takes about these things are not in themselves less moral.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I apologise to the House for adding a few words, but I do so because a few things were not covered in debate here or in Committee. I underline every word which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has so eloquently expressed.
  In all countries at present where gambling is going on—France, Belgium, America—the move is away from the isolated casino and rather towards the club, and on town planning grounds the move is now to have one hereditament in which in part of the area there is dancing, in another part cabaret, in another part gaming; but, of course, it is a separate gaming room.
  There is in this debate a good deal of misunderstanding of this fact and of what the position is. For example, if we take Berkeley Square, and the well-known club there, I presume that the famous night club in the basement is to be treated as being in separate premises from the equally well-known gaming institution on the first floor. I imagine that it is so; I imagine that it is wholly separate.
  Take Hamilton Place. There, there is now a night club in the basement, one of the best restaurants possible on the ground floor, and gaming on the first floor. Within the past year those premises have very much improved their gaming
  100
  and facilities. They are now among the best in the world.
  There are up and down the country at present certain places where I agree with the Home Secretary that the cabaret should not be on the same site as the gaming. There should be a quite separate means of entry. For example, one would pay to go into the cabaret on the ground floor and then have to go as a member into a totally separate club for gaming. In so far as the premises are totally separate, I agree that in that sense of the word they should be separate. But it is absurd if the suggestion is that we should have to close all our best clubs, or that they would have to go to totally separate premises like Crockford's.
  The reason for this suggestion in the Home Office originally is that when France began gaming it decided to have totally separate casinos. It is only (relatively recently that one finds the private club in Paris. There is one for men only, and it is there that one gets what the Home Secretary calls hard gaming. I think that it is right to have separate rooms for hard gaming, but in the North it is not, in the main, hard gaming in the true sense of the word. I do not propose to go into the argument about whether men and women are induced into gaming. They are introduced with the Is. or the 2s., as they are on football pools and elsewhere.
  We must not overlook that we have, with all its evils, probably the most successful gaming set-up in the world outside Nevada. The clubs are doing very well. It is just part of the swinging London of today and of the provinces that they should have the amenities and facilities of gambling which a civilised society should be able to have today.
  Mr. Carlisle: In view of the speech by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

  HOURS OF OPENING OF GAMING CLUBS
  No premises to which Part II of this Act applies shall be open for the purpose of gaming for more than 12 hours in any period of 24 hours.—[Mr. Deedes.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Deedes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that my predecessor in the Chair ruled that when taking new Clause 5, which we should have taken with new Clause 3, we might have a backward look at new Clause 3, "Permitted hours of play":
  The Board shall regulate the hours of play during which gaming will be permitted to take place on premises to which Part II of this Act applies.
  In imposing restrictions limiting the gaming the Board shall take into account the locality, the nature of the games and the circumstances of play and may provide different hours of play according to the local needs.
  in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), and take Government Amendments No. 100 and No. 101.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Deedes: We recognise that the question of hours is difficult. My hon. Friends and I found hitting on the right answer very difficult. It is not only a question of how long clubs should be open, but who shall determine that. In our search for the answer we consulted a number of clubs, some of which I think even the Home Secretary would accept as reputable, and other witnesses. The new Clause roughly represents our thinking in the light of that experience.
  As we left that matter in Committee, the hours were to be primarily a matter for local decisions. The Under-Secretary of State took the view that this was just the sort of thing which local justices could best do, having regard to such factors as clubs in residential areas where activity after one or two o'clock in the morning would be thought intolerable by the residents, and other considerations.
  We remain of the view that as far as possible, effective control should be with the Board. I take it that that is the sense of new Clause 3 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). We accept, of course, that the Board should have regard to the local conditions and all the other considerations which the justices would take into account.
  That said, I think that the number of hours in the 24 in which gaming should be possible is a matter on which Parliament should have the last word. We should take a view on it. It has been
  102
  accepted through all our earlier proceedings that in certain matters of principle Parliament should define the intention and determine what the line is to be, but that in matters of administrative detail as far as possible the Board should have effective control, and that where that is not possible the Home Secretary should act by means of the regulations.
  This is a matter of principle, and that is how a great many clubs see it themselves. A number of them consider that the totality of hours in the 24 is a matter on which a central decision should be made. They do not see, any more than many of us would see, that clubs open for 24 hours during the day and night around the clock, and even around the week, are good for them or for the social good.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman proposes intended to be in addition to the powers which would be given to my right hon. Friend under Amendment No. 100, or in substitution for them?
  Mr. Deedes: That is a point which I shall make later.
  Those whom we have consulted generally take the view that 12 hours' gaming would be enough. Most of them added, though this is a matter of opinion, that 4 o'clock in the morning is late enough for most gaming clubs to be open. It would follow, therefore, that 4 o'clock in the afternoon would be early enough for them to open. I recognise that their views are not decisive, but there are two practical considerations. We are not just telling people what is for their own good.
  The first practical matter is that of enforcement. We are to have inspectors who, I hope, will work in a reasonably harmonious relationship with the clubs, for how otherwise will they get their work done? It is clear that unless we limit the hours we shall require a large number of inspectors. If gaming is to take place around the clock, instead of the hours being limited to half that time, roughly double the number of inspectors would be required.
  The other practical consideration—and this meets the point that the Home Secretary has in mind, to which we are not unsympathetic—is the need to contain gaming in general. If it is round the

  103
  clock, the last thing we shall do is to contain its extent. This coincides with the view of the reputable clubs. From time to time the Home Secretary lets fly at the clubs as if they were a comprehensive evil which we are here to repress. I am impressed by the point of view expressed by the owners of the reputable clubs.
  I said this on Second Reading and since then I have met some of them. They feel that on the whole their businesses will succeed according to the reputation they achieve, partly among people in this country and partly among people abroad. No club in this country which wants to attract lucrative custom wishes to have a reputation for fiddling or running a bucket shop round the 24 hours to which nobody in his senses wants to go, at least for amusement.
  The Home Secretary proposes to empower himself to restrict by regulations. We have never favoured allowing him to overburden himself with regulations under the Bill. The more the Board does, and the less the Home Office administration makes itself responsible for, the better. The Home Office is already overburdened and regulation making added by this provision would increase that burden.
  The second objection is that the Bill would produce a very inflexible result. If the Home Secretary is to determine by regulation—I am not clear whether he means the totality of hours or the area of hours or the right to apply them locally— and goes too far in this direction, we shall find ourselves being advised by the Board in a year's time of the need for a fresh set of regulations. Generally speaking, we think that the less the Home Secretary requires to resort to regulation here the better. It is a matter on which the Board's experience would be quite invaluable. It would know the local variations.
  But it is for Parliament to say what, generally speaking, the area and extent of gaming within the 24 hours should be and then for the Board to regulate these within the limits with regard to local conditions. That is the effective approach we want to make and even if the Undersecretary of State adheres to the wish to control by regulations—which we think wrong—I hope that he will accept that
  104
  Parliament should determine what the totality of hours should be. That is a principle we should declare in the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we shall also be debating with new Clause 5 Government Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 and that, if that is the wish, the House can divide on them when we reach their proper place on the Notice Paper.
  Mr. Paget: It is my experience generally that if we put in a maximum it becomes a minimum. To put in the maximum of 12 hours—which, in my view, would be far too much for most clubs—would be to make them a minimum. Inter-club competition, in so far as it exists, imposes a minimum all round. This is something which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary ought not to do.
  New Clause 3 is unnecessary. Once there is the situation in which application for a licence depends upon a consent having been negotiated with the Board, surely that consent must involve the rules having been negotiated and approved. The rules will surely set out what the hours are to be. Thus, the Board is already involved in deciding the hours of opening.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The purpose of the latter part of new Clause 3 is for Parliament to lay down the criteria to which the Board and the Home Secretary should apply their minds. They are the main criteria for determining what sort of hours a particular club ought reasonably to require.
  Mr. Paget: If one has confidence in the Board—and in a sense the Bill depends on the Board—these are the very considerations which it will bear in mind when negotiating with applicants what the rules should be. I cannot think that we should pick out a list of criteria and assume that the Board has not got the sense to think of them itself and, indeed, of others we have not thought of.
  Finally, we have as a backstop Government Amendment No. 100, which provides for the Home Secretary to impose restrictions if he should think it necessary. I hope that it will not be necessary, because I believe this matter is better left to the rules as negotiated with the Board. But it will be there

  105
  should it prove necessary and, therefore, I cannot see that new Clause 3 and new Clause 5 are either of them needed.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having been here when I should have been in my place to move new Clause 3. My aircraft was somewhat late in arriving in this country and I was unable to get here sooner. I owe another apology for having been voiceless during the Committee stage, but I have read most of the proceedings, and certainly all the Ministerial and other leading speeches. I do not propose to repeat what was said in Committee about points which, due to unavoidable absence, I was unable to pursue.
  I share the general tenor of the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), although I do not actually agree with new Clause 5, for obvious reasons. I agree that the Board is really the body which must regulate the hours and that it is inherent that there must be some regulation of hours. I still adhere to the view that the Board should, however, be given some specific criteria by Parliament as to its consideration. Such guidance has been forthcoming in the licensing laws.
  In the main, these gaming clubs are not in residential areas. The prime consideration here is that they are generally in the centre of cities or major towns. The nature of the games played is of the greatest importance to fixing the hours. There should be one set of hours for a bridge or poker club, but when dealing with chemin de fer and roulette, for example, we find that these games do not even begin until perhaps 9 p.m. or usually 10 p.m. and may well go on till 5 a.m. or thereabouts. So some assistance should be given by Parliament about hours.
  I do not think that the criteria are really so obvious except to those of us who have had international experience of the effects of gambling. I would be horrified if we were to permit in this country the situation which rules in Las Vegas, where one can gamble round the clock, 24 hours a day. I believe that that would also be the overwhelming view of the British public. Clearly, there must be regulation of hours.
  However, it is idle to say that the Secretary of State will impose restrictions.
  106
  He will take the advice of those whom he believes will be of assistance to him— no doubt the Board and, I hope, this House, because, having read most of the Committee proceedings, I believe that the Committee gave a great deal of admirable counsel and wisdom. Therefore, the criteria, even if they are not to be set out in a new clause should be specifically incorporated as part of the criteria on which the Board should have the advice of the Secretary of State.
  We have to know the type of criteria which will be provided. It is curious that, whereas the Home Secretary has provided for almost every type of contingency in the Bill, he has not provided for different hours in different areas.
  The Under-Secretary is new to the Bill —and it must be an extremely difficult task for him to come new to a Bill of this sort, unless he has a great wealth of gaming experience behind him. I am sorry that his predecessor, who was wholly admirable, as one can see from the Committee stage proceedings, is not able to be sitting on the Front Bench with him during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) specifically asked if he might be loaned to the hon. Gentleman for this debate. I hope that he will come back to discuss these points with him, because he showed a very shrewd sense of observance of these matters in many ways.
  7.0 p.m.
  Some provision must be made for different hours in different localities. The position is wholly different in the West End of London and perhaps places in Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool which have hours applicable to certain clubs operating there. They will be operating into the early hours and very much later than the normal club will require.
  I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that if one is to have a board and to try to set up the best board possible one has to give it the residual power to be flexible and to be able to regulate the hours according to the need as it may arise.
  Mr. Paget: It is not merely a question of localities; it is a question of games. For instance, there is the old ladies' bridge game which ends about tea-time; and there is the businessmen's game which is

  107
  between office-leaving and going home to dinner. Then there is the "chemmy" game, which begins about 1 o'clock. It is very difficult to have one form of hours for the lot.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: That is true. I have referred to the locality, the nature of the games and circumstances of play, and we may provide different hours of play according to the local needs. I think that that replies to this point and covers everything from the bridge club and the poker club, to what I may call the real hard game. This, of course, takes into account cabaret facilities, if they are operating in an area of or adjacent to a gaming club. Therefore, whether this Clause is written into the Bill or not, I would invite the Home Secretary to consider carefully giving the Board the criteria which it would then have to consider, and leaving the decision to it.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: There is no great fundamental difference of opinion between any of the views that have been put forward by hon. Members in this connection. In moving, as I do, Amendment No. 100—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not moving the Amendment. He can speak to it, but not move it at this point.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
  I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the view that there must be some limitation of hours. There can be no question whatsoever of 24-hour gambling. Indeed, every hon. Gentleman who has spoken has made the point that there should be consideration of three jurisdictions here: that of the local licensing justices; that of the Home Secretary; and also that of the Board itself.
  When this matter was dealt with in Committee the main arguments that were advanced in favour of restriction were, first, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), that if the hours were limited it would be easier for gaming clubs to be supervised by the police and the gaming Board. Second, that it was necessary to restrict hours because
  108
  gamblers were more likely to be easy prey during the early hours of the morning when their resistance was lowered. Again, it was put that it was undesirable that gaming establishments should be open during normal working hours. It was also pleaded that the staff of gaming clubs would be caused to work excessively long hours if gaming were not limited. Lastly, it was said that it would often be uneconomical for clubs to remain open for 24 hours a day, but that unless there was a statutory restriction the competition would force them to do so.
  The Government undertook to give further consideration to those arguments, and this they have done; the Amendment to Clause 21 is the result. As hon. Members will have noticed, this gives fairly wide powers to the Home Secretary to make regulations in this connection. Hon. Members will also be aware that under paragraph 22 to the Second Schedule licensing justices already have power to impose such restrictions—if any —on the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on the relevant premises, as appear to the authority to be necessary for the purpose of preventing disturbance or annoyance to the occupiers of other premises in the vicinity.
  I would point out to the House that when the Home Secretary is exercising those powers to make regulations he has the benefit of the Board's advice. He must consult the Board under subsection (2) of Clause 49 before making regulations, and indeed, as already mentioned by the Home Secretary earlier, under subsection (3) of that same Clause he is empowered to make different provision for different areas or in relation to different cases or different circumstances to which the power is applicable.
  I therefore submit that the three jurisdictions that have been referred to by hon. Members are brought into the picture and, I would submit, brought into this matter in the right order. The Home Secretary, by regulation, empowers Parliament to consider, after all, what is a matter of general social policy as far as the Tightness or wrongness of laying down the restriction is concerned, and where the broad lines should be drawn.

  109
  The Board, collating evidence that it collects, is able to submit advice to the Home Secretary and to licensing justices and within this framework the licensing justices, who have the detailed intimate knowledge, are then able to come to a proper conclusion with regard to the hours that it is proper to allow gaming to take place in any establishment.
  In the circumstances, it is my submission that the provisions of new Clause 3 and new Clause 5, whilst their general motives and objectives are laudable, are rendered unnecessary on account of the provision of Amendment No. 100; Amendment No. 101 is, of course, consequential upon the new subsection that would then appear in Clause 21.
  Mr. Carlisle: May I say at once that I have no intention, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ash-ford (Mr. Deedes) and myself, to attempt to push new Clause 5 to a Division and that at the appropriate moment I will ask leave to withdraw it. Equally, we on this side of the House have no possible intention of voting against Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 when we reach them, because of course, as the Undersecretary has said, our new Clause and the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the Government Amendments really are all aimed at the same end. They are only a different— and, obviously, since we put them down we felt our ways were slightly better— means of achieving the object.
  All who have spoken in this debate have agreed that we do not want 24-hour gaming. I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet, who said firmly that we do not want 24-hour gaming, that at the moment we have it in this city. To my knowledge there are at least two, and I suspect many more, clubs which are open for 24 hours a day for the purpose of gaming. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, other hon. Friends and I tried to come to a decision on what would be the right regulations to be made. We felt that there were many social arguments against 24-hour gaming and we put down these new Clauses.
  Turning to the Amendments, against which we shall not divide, and the fact that we thought new Clause 5 would be
  110
  a better way of achieving the object, licensing justices will, of course, have power under the Schedule to fix the hours for any particular club, but the hours they can fix, and the grounds on which they can fix them, are considerably limited. Paragraph 22 of the Second Schedule says:
  "On granting or renewing a licence under this Act, the licensing authority may impose such restrictions (if any) on the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on the relevant premises as appear to the authority to be necessary for the purpose of preventing disturbances or annoyance to the occupiers of other premises in the vicinity."
  It seems that the magistrates are to concentrate their attention on the question of hours which would effect disturbance. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will agree that in deciding the overall number of hours other matters have to be taken into consideration.
  In view of what has been said, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the suggestion that 12 out of 24 hours is adequate. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that the danger is that if one makes a maximum it becomes a minimum. That is often true, but I do not think that it will be true when licensing justices fix the maximum.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I should like the hon. Member to say how the 12 hours could be married to Clause 18, dealing with Sunday, which expressly allows at least 13 hours.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: Had we been intending to push the new Clause to a Division we would probably have put forward relevant Amendments to Clause 18 which would have been consequential. Perhaps I should reconsider my statement that 12 hours is the right maximum. Gaming clubs open morning, noon and night at a time when all honest people should be earning an honest living other than when they are on holiday, and clubs open all through the night in holiday towns where people have an opportunity of enjoying themselves in those premises during much of the evening, are not providing a great social service for the country.
  Under these proposals the Home Secretary proposes to lay down regulations. I hope that he will make them wide and flexible. It would have been better if

  111
  within a limited number of hours it were left to the Board and the magistrates to decide rather than to have the matter decided by regulations. I should like the Under Secretary to answer a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. Is it true that the Board, before giving a certificate of approval, will have no say about the hours? The hon. and learned Member spoke with great conviction, but from my reading of the Bill it does not seem to be a necessary ingredient of approval that the Board should agree to the hours. It seems that the hours to be laid down by regulations are likely to be the hours, subject to local alterations, which will be permitted.
  We think that it would have been more flexible if Parliament made clear that it did not approve of 24-hour gaming and left this matter to the Board rather than to the Home Secretary making an actual restriction on the hours. We are all aiming at the same end. We believe that gaming should be limited. In view of the comment of the Home Secretary earlier, when he reminded me that part of the object of the Bill is to limit opportunities for gaming, I am sorry that he has not been present in this debate. He would then have realised that hon. Members on both sides of the House are equally aware that that is the intention.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I understand that it is not within the Board's power to come to any decision in regard to hours. Under Clause 49(2), before the Home Secretary can make regulations he must consult the Board generally on the matter.
  Mr. Deedes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  GAMING TO WHICH PART I APPLIES
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 1, line 12, after ' club ', insert
  'or a miners' welfare institute '.
  This completes a series of Amendments agreed in Committee consequent on the decision to allow miners' welfare institutes to register under Part II of the
  112
  Bill. It follows that the registered institutes, like registered clubs, should be excluded from Part I of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in line 14, leave out from beginning to ' this '.
  This is a drafting Amendment which gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee to the hon. Member for Run-corn (Mr. Carlisle) that the drafting of Clause 1 would be reconsidered to see if it could be simplified. The Government realise that it is unnecessary to have both the following phrases in the Clause— " Except as provided by the next following subsection ", and " Notwithstanding anything in the preceding subsection". The latter words are therefore to be omitted.
  Mr. Carlisle: I thank the Undersecretary. When I moved an Amendment in Committee on this question I apologised for starting discussion on a minor drafting point. Rather to my surprise, but certainly to my pleasure, I was supported by several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. They agreed that it is nonsensical to make Bills complicated. However much that may be to the advantage of lawyers, it is certainly not to the advantage of other people. I am glad that the Home Office, as a result of various comments made from both sides of the Committee, has agreed that what was described by the then Under-Secretary as the traditional means of drafting a Bill need not necessarily always exist and that Amendments to simplify the Bill could be accepted.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

  NATURE OF GAME
  Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, in page 2 line 9, leave out ' have effect in relation' and insert 'apply '.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 151.
  Mr. Carlisle: This was another attempt which I made by an Amendment in Committee to try to simplify the wording of

  113
  the Bill. It is an effort to delete four words and substitute one word. The Clause, at line 9, states:
  "The preceding subsection shall not have effect in relation to gaming which takes place … and shall not have effect in relation to any gaming where the gaming takes place in a hostel, …"
  It would be far simpler and more understandable English if the words " have effect in relation " on both occasions were omitted, and the word " apply " substituted. The Clause would then read:
  " The preceding subsection shall not apply to gaming …"
  On the other drafting Amendments I moved in Committee the Home Secretary gave an undertaking to look at them, and he has been good enough on Report to bring back Amendments to carry them out. On this occasion he said that he would look at it, but he has not brought back an Amendment of his own, and I hope that he will be willing to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sorry that the Government are not able to accommodate the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is just as well to show that there are limits even to the generosity of the Home Office. The Government are, however, grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his efforts to improve the drafting of subsection (2).
  Clause 1 says what gaming in Part I applies to. Clause 2(1) refers to
  "gaming to which this Part of this Act applies "
  To refer to a form of gaming to which Part I does apply is merely to cause confusion in the mind of the reader. We are dealing with two quite different concepts, and the two different expressions are not only justified but necessary. The point was raised in Committee, we agreed to consider it and we have done so, but we have come to the conclusion that the Clause is best left as it is.
  Mr. Carlisle: In view of the excellent explanation of the Under-Secretary, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendments, and accept that the apparently excessively lengthy drifting is still necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

  GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO GAMING ON PREMISES LICENSED FOR RETAIL SALE OF LIQUOR
  Dame Joan Vickers: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 24, after 'dominoes', insert:
  ' whist, solo whist, bridge, nap, euchre, rummy'.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4.
  Dame Joan Vickers: The purpose of the Amendments is to allow in public houses the playing of whist, solo whist, bridge, nap, euchre and rummy. These games are played only with very small stakes, very often for a pint of beer or a few pence. I understand that at present the licensee may apply to the local authority for permission for these games to be played.
  This is an innocent request, and these games should be permitted, particularly whist, solo whist and rummy. They are played now, and I only hope that those who play them will not be caught! It is very much better that this should be above-board rather than that the games should be played illegally. Perhaps the Home Secretary will agree to this request, which will give a great deal of pleasure to those who play for small stakes.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to add one word of agreement with regard to these delightful games. Would the Undersecretary, later on, be good enough to turn up the debate which took place when the then Home Secretary, now Lord Butler, inserted dominoes and cribbage into our laws? There was a violent reaction everywhere, since the names of games are never put into an Act of Parliament, because the game and its rules can be changed. This was one of the " sacred cows " of the Home Office. Lord Butler would have none of that, and he walked across to the Box and said, " I am writing dominoes and cribbage into this." There was a frightful scream everywhere, but he did it, and I do not think that great harm has come to us as a result.
  It would, therefore, have been possible to have written in euchre, solo whist and

  115
  other games but, as they have not been written in, may I mention that dominoes can be played for a lot of money, and it is possible to get into endless trouble by not playing it as it is normally played in a public house. With whist one can get into worse trouble. Clause 6(3) provides that
  "… the licensing justices for the licensing district … in which the premises are situated may by order authorise the playing on those premises of a game specified in the order, other than dominoes and cribbage."
  This would, of course, provide for the other games which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned. The body to give advice on gaming is the Gaming Board. Whether those particular games can be played and the conditions under which they can be played, I would respectfully suggest, is not a subject for an Amendment here but in another place. Consideration could be given to the insertion of the words
  "after consultation with or on the advice of the Gaming Board "
  so that these additional games may be permitted. The Board can say what they are, and the Board can lay down the rules. In that way there will be an accepted game to the rules as laid down, and there will be no difficulties with high gaming.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: It was not on account of an appreciation of a great and terrible peril confronting society that Clause 6 was drafted so as to refer only to dominoes and cribbage. As has been said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), it was on account of the tradition and general popularity of these two games, and because they were specified in Section 35 of the 1963 Act, that they have been given an absolute right which has not been extended to other games. The principle of the Amendment is to add to this specification.
  I do not think that I could disagree about any of the games which are mentioned in the three Amendments now under consideration, but neither could we disagree on account of three, 13 or 30 other games. Where is the line to be drawn? If we are to include whist, solo whist, bridge, nap, euchre and rummy, why should we discriminate against snap
  116
  and happy families? I believe that we should accept what has been an absolute right with regard to dominoes and cribbage since 1963 and refrain from specifying an absolute right for any of the other games that might be included.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet that this is a matter for the Gaming Board, with its already very heavy duties, to consider. After all, the local popularity of a game is a matter which is properly within the province of the licensing justices. They are the people who have been vested with jurisdiction in the matter by Clause 6.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

  GAMING TO WHICH PART II APPLIES
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 108, in page 7, leave out line 4.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment, we are taking Amendments Nos. 109 and 110.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: These are preparing the way for Amendments which remove from clubs or institutes licensed or registered under Part II the right to promote non-commercial entertainments under Clause 40 or to provide amusements with prizes in the form of games of the fairground type either as incidents to non-commercial bazaars, dinners, dances, etc., under Section 48 of the Betting, Gaming and Loteries Act, 1963, or commercially under Section 49 of that Act. Licensed clubs are permitted by new Clause 2 to provide gaming with prizes on conditions comparable to those applying to amusements with prizes under Section 49 of the 1963 Act. The significant difference here is that this is to be treated as a form of gaming under Part II and not left to be governed by a separate code of law.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 109, in page 7, line 11, leave out from beginning to 'gaming' in line 13 and insert ' and which is not'.
  No. 110, in line 14, leave out from ' applies ' to end of line 18.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 12

  WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN GAMING TO WHICH PART II APPLIES
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 22, leave out from ' licence' to ' or' in line 28 and insert:
  ' who, at the time when he begins to take part in the gaming, is eligible to take part in it'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are taking Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 14, 15 and 30.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: The first three Amendments provide an alternative procedure by which members and their guests can qualify to take part in gaming on any premises for the purposes of Clause 12. As it stands, subsection (2) provides that a person may not take part in gaming at licensed premises unless he is a member of the club specified in the licence and was admitted to membership in pursuance of an application made in person at those premises, and at least 48 hours have elapsed between the time of making application and the time when he resorts to gaming, or that he is a bona fide guest of a person so entitled to play on the premises.
  That rule has been relaxed by Clause 20(2) with regard to bingo. In the case of bingo, applications for membership of a club need not be made in person and the period which has to elapse between acceptance to membership and gaming is 24 hours instead of 48.
  As for casinos, the requirement of application in person at the premises followed by a 48-hour interval is intended as a check on impulse gaming and to give the licensee a proper opportunity of scrutinising intending players. After all, it is very much in the interests of the licensee that he should do this, because he can be answerable for the behaviour of players with his licence.
  The difficulty about Clause 12 arises in the case of a club which has more than one club house, and very substantially in the case of a member who perhaps a very long time ago became a member otherwise than by personal application at the premises where he wishes to play. In order to qualify under Clause 12 as it stands at the moment,
  118
  he would have to resort to the procedure of resigning from the club and making a fresh application for membership at those premises. To get over this difficulty, these Amendments provide an alternative procedure whereby a person who is already a member of the club can give notice in writing or in person at the premises and so qualify. By qualifying himself, of course, a bona fide guest of his would qualify in the same way.
  The Amendment to Clause 45, which deals with the service of documents, is consequential. The normal provisions applying to notices sent or given under the Bill are not appropriate to the notices of intent to be given under the Amendments to Clause 12.
  Mr. Buck: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. This recasting is very sensible. However, I am not sure that I understand him entirely. The position of existing members of clubs, as I understand it, is that they will not be required to make any re-application in person.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: That is so, provided that notice in writing is sent. Under the original provision, there was no obligation to make application in writing, although in practice that would have happened. Now, notice in writing must be given 48 hours before gaming is permitted.
  Mr. Buck: No doubt my noble friends is another place will wish to investigate further. It seems to be a somewhat cumbrous way of dealing with those who are already members of clubs to ensure that they make the further application which I understand will now be necessary.
  One other point which I would draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention is a matter which I raised in Committee. There, we were given certain assurances about the position where premises were moved and a club changed from being a club in, say, one part of London to one in another part. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman's predecessor said:
  " We will certainly consider the first of these two Amendments. If it is a question of drafting and of moving premises, we will consider it. But I hope that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) will leave the drafting to the draftsmen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 14th March, 1968; c. 238.]

  119
  The Amendment that I put forward in Committee was to ensure that we did not have an absurd situation arising whereby Crockford's or any other gaming establishment moved from one set of premises to another and all the members having to reapply on the new premises. This matter was raised in Committee and I hope that it has been dealt with somewhere in the whole of this Clause or those which we are considering with it.
  It is clearly a matter highly apposite to the Amendment we are considering, dealing with applications for membership, that Amendment No. 7 says that the application has to be made in person on the premises besides being in writing. This is the wording at the moment. This would apply if a club changed its premises.
  I am still doubtful whether it is appropriate to make it obligatory for a person, before he becomes a member of a club of the character we are considering, to make the application in person on the premises. The arguments do not carry great validity. It seems absurd that a foreign visitor passing through London cannot write to a club and give a couple of sponsors, a proposer and seconder, for his membership and thereby become a club member. This may be possible under the existing situation, but I do not think that it is.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at that again between now and the Bill going to another place if he does not wish to deal with it straight away. I can appreciate his difficulties. He has not lived with the Bill as long as some of us, although he has impressed us with his knowledge of the detail of it. These are small technical points, but they are appropriate to be raised on Report stage. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to deal with them. If not, we shall understand, and we hope they will be dealt with in another place at a later stage.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: There are three points. First, I believe that these Amendments cover the case where the club has moved to other premises. Secondly, the main purpose of this 48-hours or 24-hours provision is to prevent impulsive gambling. This is probably as potent a factor as any others contained in the Bill dedicated to the containment of gaming.
  120
  Thirdly, concerning foreign visitors, as has been said by my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), it is certainly not intended and not desired that the United Kingdom should be the Mecca of international gamblers. Therefore, foreigners coming to Britain are treated in this respect in the same way as British nationals.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: A considerable number of foreign visitors do gamble here. First, do I take it that if the secretary of a club sends a notice to its existing overseas members that is enough and they have nothing else to do.
  Secondly, is there any objection to the member, when he is overseas, making his application in writing to become a member of the club and having his membership sent to him?
  It is not helpful to go into all this Mecca business. I think it is an unfortunate word to choose, because it is one of the most respected establishments that has been advising so many hon. Members in the House. It is a very important potential tourist factor in the world today that there are these facilities available in London to people coming from overseas. It is absolutely right that they should be governed by the same law as ourselves. I am entirely against the argument that there should be a separate law for foreigners than for the British. But we must be assured that it is enough for existing members if they have written notice and that they can apply in writing to become members. I should like some elucidation, because I am not clear about the position on those two points.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 6, in page 8, line 30, leave out from 'who' to end of line 35 and insert
  'at the time when the guest begins to take part in the gaming, is eligible to take part in it'.
  No. 7, in page 8, line 38, at end insert:
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a member of the club specified in the licence is eligible to take part in the gaming at any particular time if either—

  (a) he was admitted to membership of the club in pursuance of an application in writing made by him in person on the premises in question, and at that time at least forty-eight hours have elapsed since he applied for membership of the club, or

  121

  (b) since becoming a member of the club he has: given notice in writing in person on those premises to the holder of the licence, or to a person acting on behalf of the holder of the licence, of his intention to take part in gaming on those premises, and at that time at least forty-eight hours have elapsed since he gave that notice.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 16

  PROVISION OF CREDIT FOR GAMING
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  (2) Neither the holder of the licence nor any person acting on his behalf or under any arrangement with him shall accept a cheque and give in exchange for it cash or tokens for enabling any person to take part in the gaming unless the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

  (a)the cheque is not a post-dated cheque, and

  (b)it is exchanged for cash to an amount equal to the amount for which it is drawn, or is exchanged for tokens at the same rate as would apply if cash, to the amount for which the cheque is drawn, were given in exchange for them;

  but, where those conditions are fulfilled, the giving of cash or tokens in exchange for a cheque shall not be taken to contravene subsection (1) of this section.
  The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify Clause 16(2) so that it operates directly instead of by reference to subsection (1).
  There is no substantial change in the purpose of the subsection, which is to make it clear that, notwithstanding the prohibitions of credit contained in subsection (1), cheques may be accepted in exchange for money or chips to be used in gaming on two conditions and not otherwise, namely,

  "(a) the cheque is not a post-dated cheque, and

  (b) it is exchanged for cash to an amount equal to the amount for which it is drawn, or is exchanged for tokens at the same rate as would apply if cash, to the amount for which the cheque is drawn, were given in exchange for them."

  That is the purpose of the Amendment. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  Mr. Buck: This Amendment is a tidier way of effecting the concession relating
  122
  to the giving of cheques for chips which was set out in the Bill as originally drafted in a somewhat untidy way. This is an appropriate concession to make, but we should pause to consider what we are doing, because this is of some importance. We are now allowing cheques which are given not quite for the purpose of gaming but for the purpose of obtaining tokens whereby gaming can result to be enforceable. This is a change of some significance.
  I must tell the House that my previous master, if I may so describe him, the late Sir John Hobson, for whom so many on both sides had the greatest respect, and I certainly had when I served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, took the view that this was probably not an appropriate concession to make. I was in the unusual position of disagreeing with him concerning this matter. The main reason why I think it is right that we should have an Amendment such as that before us is that if we allow, with the limitations imposed by the new draft of the appropriate Clause, the enforce-ability of cheques given for chips, we are going some way to lessening the likelihood of strong-arm methods being adopted.
  In the past, a person who has gone into a gaming establishment and presented a cheque for, say, £50 and received £50 worth of chips and thereafter has stopped the cheque has caused a certain amount of strong-arm methods to be indulged in by disreputable clubs to get back the money on the dishonoured cheque. Therefore, this seems an appropriate concession to make. I need not weary the House with the details of the differences of this Clause from the way it was effected in the earlier Bill. It is sufficient to say that it seems—and on this occasion I have done quite a bit of homework—to be a tidier way of effecting that which was effected earlier in a less tidy way.
  That is is right that there should be limitations on the concession so that the cheque is not a post-dated cheque is self-evidently right; and that the amount given for the cheque in tokens should be directly relative to the cash from which the cheque is made out is again sensible and right. Otherwise, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, a concealed profit could be made in that a charge could be

  123
  made for cashing a cheque which similarly would be inappropriate. Therefore, we on this side welcome the simpler and tidier way of effecting a concession which, on the whole, we feel is an appropriate one to make.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17
  EXCLUSION OF PERSONS UNDER 18
  Further Amendment made: No. 111, in page 12, line 1, after '20', insert ' or section (Special provisions as to gaming for prizes)'.
Clause 19

  APPROVAL BY BOARD OF CERTAIN PERSONS CONNECTED WITH GAMING
  Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 27, after ' section ', insert 'and'.
  I should offer a word of explanation, because this is a very important Amendment. The Amendments which, if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we would discuss are not only Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, but also Amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80 and 81.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that that would be convenient.
  Mr. Callaghan: Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are related here and Amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80 and 81 are those concerning Schedule 5. If hon. Gentlemen will look at that they will see that these Amendments carry the same principle into the Schedules as I am about to enunciate on Clause 19. This is a significant Amendment which arises out of a concession given in Committee and in which the Government have been substantially influenced by the Committee.
  I am asking Parliament to remove the right of appeals to me in respect of the issue and revocation of certificates and decisions by the Board. These Amendments would remove from the Home Secretary appeals to him against decisions of the Gaming Board. Such decisions could, of course, concern refusal or revocation of a certificate of approval to
  124
  gaming operatives, managers, organisers or supervisers in licensed clubs. The Board's decisions on these matters—and this is the most important sentence that I have to utter—lawfully arrived at, will be final and there will be no appeal to me from its decision.
  I wish to bring this out fully to the House. The change is consistent with provisions to be introduced by Amendments which I will later move to Schedule 2, whereby all applications for licences are to be subject to certificates of consent by the Board which will also be entitled, in certain circumstances, to revoke such certificate and, therefore, to render a licence void.
  I point out that the Board's decision is to be final. It would be out of keeping for an individual employee to enjoy rights of appeal denied to a licence holder. I heard the discussion on this in the Committee and was influenced and, indeed, converted by it. I will not go deeply into the philosophy, because it was discussed in Committee, but this provision emphasises the Board's authority. No one has a right to engage in commercial gaming. This is the effect of the Amendment. The Board's decision will be final, which means I must take very great care in the persons I appoint to carry out these responsibilities; and I am now considering this matter in order to find the right people.
  Obviously, there will be discussions on this matter in the House from time to time, but the view of both sides of the Committee, which I have accepted, was that appeals to the Secretary of State from the Board's decisions would diffuse a responsibility that ought to be kept concentrated, and might bring such decisions within reach of political pressures which is something to which I am sure I nor any of my successors would wish to be subjected.
  That is what this group of Amendments is about. They are technical only in the sense that they are carrying through this intention in the Clause and the Schedules.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The Home Secretary has said, I believe rightly, that this is a very important question. I entirely agree with the view that he has expressed in principle. I want to speak about a

  125
  very important matter which is not included directly within the Amendment although it is implicit in it—the need for immediate power of suspension under Clause 19; because this has, as yet, still been overlooked. I believe that a little time of the House ought to be taken on this Amendment, and that so that the public should fully realise what Parliament is doing under Clause 19 we ought to get the situation clear.
  My own view, which I expressed to his predecessor in the Home Office about 18 months ago, before the Bill was published was that, first of all, there must be a Gaming Board; secondly, that the Board should have full executive power; and, thirdly, that if it was to have that power it must be given the initial responsibility of considering whether there shall be a consent certificate. I will say no more on that because we will deal with it on Schedule 2 and others.
  Under Schedule 5, if we are to have some control at the inception of gaming then, equally, the Board must have power of revocation of that control. I have always taken the view, which is shared in France, Belgium and many other civilised European countries and in the United States of America as well, that there is not an inherent right to have a licensed establishment for gaming, and that it is a privilege. It is not the same as a public house or even the same as a betting office, although the Betting Licensing Committee has been given the power.
  I personally would not have given it. It would have gone further and taken the matter to the Board, subject to certain rights and certain other forms of control which it would be out of order for me to develop now. But I feel strongly that if we are to pursue this course then not only must the Board have the initial power of refusal, but also complete power over withdrawal or revocation. Why do I say this?
  8 p.m.
  There are certain establishments in London, of which, if necessary, I can give notice to the Home Secretary, which are undesirable. They are undesirable because, in the first place, they use outside collaborators to collect their debts. Those outside collaborators are the protection racketeers in London. They are the men who go and insist, if I may use the phrase, on the payment of certain debts.
  126
  It is very difficult to pinpoint or to prove these matters up to the hilt when subject to judicial control, because those who can give the information are not willing to do so in a court of law. They are too frightened to do so.
  There is one particular club I know of which colleagues in the House, to my certain knowledge, have visited quite recently. It would not be easy, in the atmosphere of a court, to tackle with certainty the question whether this particular club and those particular directors should be permitted to have a grant or not.
  The same position applies on revocation. It is extremely difficult to establish in a court of law whether cheating has taken place in a club. It is almost impossible to prove with absolute certainty whether electronic instruments have been used to defeat the natural play of machines. In the United States it has become almost impossible to prove the use of electronic controls for cheating at roulette except by putting in the people whom it is necessary to feed into the establishment to give the requisite kind of advice to lead to prosecution. I therefore think that if the paraphernalia of effective control is to be given to the Board, it must not only decide in advance the cases which it will refuse, but it must have complete control over revocation.
  That leads me to what is perhaps my most important point, and one with which I ask the Minister to deal. Let us suppose that in certain premises there is some cheating or misconduct in the evening. There appears to be no power for the inspector to suspend the employee concerned forthwith, and, in a bad case, to suspend the operation of the club that evening. I am not referring to the power to revoke, but if there is a really serious complaint, and it is shown, or admitted, that evening that the croupier has been engaging in misconduct, surely there must be a power to suspend forthwith the operation of play at those tables?
  Mr. Buck: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if certain Amendments which have been tabled by this side of the House to various parts of the Schedule were accepted that power would be available? The issue does not, however, arise so much on these Amendments.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend, and when we come to those

  127
  Amendments we may have an opportunity to elaborate the position.
  What both sides of the House recognise is the necessity for a form of relatively arbitrary rule which would not be permitted in any other respect, purely because of the dangers inherent in gaming and gambling. It is because of this that the House is willing to give the Board these special powers.
  I wholeheartedly agree with the Home Secretary when he says that he has a grave responsibility to see that his appointees, particularly the chairman and others, are of the highest calibre. I hope that he will bear in mind what was said in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) about the need for the inspectorate to be of high calibre, and well paid.
  It is suggested that there will be about 15 inspectors. I think that in due course the Home Secretary will probably want about double that number, because, when he studies the problem with the police, I doubt whether he will find that they want to engage very much in the enforcement of gambling—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not obvious to me what that has to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Under the Clause we are giving the Board arbitrary powers. These powers will be exercised by the inspectorate which is to be appointed, and I am saying that if we give such arbitrary powers, it is essential that those who wield them, to wit the inspectorate and the other officers appointed, are of the highest calibre.
  I welcome the Amendment. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to obtain the right type of people. I believe that he will. If he does and if he works along the broad lines of drawing on people with a great sense of public service, and a chairman who knows a fair amount about gaming, in the same way as people are appointed to the Turf and Jockey Clubs, and so on, he will have a successful Act.
  Mr. Buck: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is an important Amendment which, taken with the other Amendments, gives the Board consider-
  128
  able arbitrary powers relating to the categories of persons who are employed in connection with gaming. That is my understanding of the position, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.
  The Amendment is confined to the employees of gaming clubs. In particular, to take the most obvious example, a croupier has to be licensed. He has to receive the Board's accolade as to his bona fides. He has to establish that he is an appropriate person to be a croupier. He has to do that by way of his antecedents. A person in that position has enormous opportunities for corruption, for taking money from his employers, for defrauding people at the casino, and so on. We have always thought it right that the Board should have power to approve such a person before he has the right to hold what is described as an operating certificate.
  By the Amendment the serious step is taken of saying that such a person has no right of appeal against a decision by the Board that he should not be allowed to operate as a croupier. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has reservations about giving the Board arbitrary powers of that kind. My first predilection is against giving anybody arbitrary powers to deprive someone of the right to earn his livelihood. That is my basic prejudice, and I imagine that it is shared by the Home Secretary, but after deep thought I take the view that in the exceptional circumstances with which we are dealing here it is right to arm the Board with this considerable power. One does not like the Star Chamber atmosphere, or giving any body of people the power to deprive a person of his living, but in these circumstances it is right to do so.
  It may not be possible in a court of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person who wants to act as a croupier has behaved in a criminal way, but evidence may well be available to the Board which will satisfy it that the person concerned is not appropriate to be a croupier because of the additional temptations, and because of the fantastic opportunities for making illicit gains. The Board will have the power to say, if the person concerned has a bad record, if he has behaved in a way which leads the

  129
  Board to suppose that he may be dishonest, " Thou shall not have an operating certificate ". On balance I think that that is right.
  I have always put forward the view that it is right for the Board to be armed with considerable powers of regulation, and I think that it would be inappropriate to go off that line now, because the Amendment goes as far as I would be prepared to go. At a later stage we shall be discussing a group of Amendments which will deprive retailers of gaming machines of the right of appeal. I shall reserve my position as to whether they are in the same category as employees of casinos and so on. It may be going too far, but I shall wait to hear what the Government have to say.
  This probably goes as far as it should. I would have been against the Amendment had not concessions been made over the classification of employees who may have an " operating certificate ". Large numbers of those employed in bingo clubs, other than those actually operating the apparatus, will not now have to have such a certificate. Without that concession, I would have been more reluctant to allow the Board these powers.
  We are dealing here with spheres of activity which I do not go along with the right hon. Gentleman in describing as evil. I do not think that a modest game of craps or a few pounds spent on roulette is evil, but there are forces at work in certain aspects of gaming which will make it necessary for the Board to be able to act quickly and sometimes arbitrarily. We must realise that we are providing the Board with considerable arbitrary powers, but on balance we are right to do so.
  Mr. Deedes: I was glad that the Home Secretary expressed awareness of the gravity of this Amendment, since we will probably deal with none graver. He has given himself a major instrument of control, the most effective in the Bill, because, where there is no appeal, if a man falls below a standard set by the Board, that is the end of the story and that is the only way to operate in this field. There are aspects of this which make it, objectionable though it may seem, essential. One, of course, is the manner in which the Board will acquire its information, since it is bound to be
  130
  privy to a good deal of information which it may share with the police and, I hope, with the proprietors, but which at its highest, will be circumstantial rather than conclusive.
  The Under-Secretary put his finger on it in Committee when he said:
  " There may be all sorts of occasions on which an operative has been guilty of behaviour of an undesirable kind which does not amount to an offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 19th March, 1968; c. 285.]
  That is what we are talking about, and we are producing something unique in English statute. Someone who is not guilty of an offence but none the less has an unsavoury "aroma" will be able to be dealt with by the Board without appeal. I am not saying that this is wrong. Those of us who have been trying to get more powers for the Board cannot now say that the right hon. Gentleman has overdone it, but to fire on suspicion is one thing and it is quite another to exclude someone from a walk of life on suspicion, as we will do here.
  How much this will depend on circumstantial evidence was made clear to those of us who have talked to proprietors of these clubs. The fact is that one rarely has conclusive evidence of misconduct by croupiers and so on. It is nearly always suspicion.
  8.15 p.m.
  I do not say this in derogation of the Amendment, but I do not think it will survive in its present form. When the Board has got going, it will have to provide, I think, on its own behalf, some additional safeguard for the individual. It will not involve us, but I am certain that it will have to happen. Although we have good reason for doing it, we have overstepped the mark, and when the Board has been operating for some time I believe that it will discover that the weight of responsibility imposed on it by the decisions which it will have to take about certain individuals will be more than it wishes to carry. I think that the Board will say to the Home Secretary at an early stage, " This is not quite what we need or can bear," and will produce some amendment, so that this will not last in its present form. The Board will have to preserve some safeguard for the individual.
  At one stroke we have built up the Board to what we now know it ought

  131
  to be. It has been given powers over individuals and will have to be of a different calibre to the Board we were discussing on Second Reading. We cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to give us any clearer picture of the Board, but the bearing of this on its composition, and its relations with the Home Secretary and Parliament, is very considerable. I hope that before we part with the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some idea of the composition and status of this body to which we are giving such considerable powers.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I do not have to demonstrate my bona fides, since it was in my Bill that the powers of the Board were originally watered down, but I was overturned in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. Now, the House is rightly saying that we must be careful of individual rights. If the Board comes to me saying, " We want to devise a different form of procedure along the lines which the right hon. Gentleman described", it will not find me unsympathetic, because I hope that I have as deep a sense of the rights of the individual as any other hon. Member. We must be careful what we are doing here, but there is no doubt that the analogy with corresponding boards in other fields was weighty, and I accepted it.
  I give the assurance now, as I did originally, that, first, I want a good Board and, second, that if it wants to propose to me alterations which will preserve additional rights I shall consider them sympathetically, knowing—I think that I have a feeling about the House—that the House will want me to do that in the end.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 10, in page 13, line 28, leave out from 'certificates' to end of line 30.
  No. 11, in page 13, line 32, leave out from ' approval' to 'shall' in line 33.
  No. 12, in page 13, line 37, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

Clause 20

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO BINGO CLUBS
  Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 123, in page 14, line 6, leave out 'section' and insert ' Part of this Act'.
  This is a drafting Amendment, required as a consequence of the use of the term " bingo club premises", not only in this Clause but in new Clause 2, which has now been inserted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 14, line 9, at end insert:
  (2) Where a game of bingo is played simultaneously on different bingo club premises in circumstances where—

  (a)all the players take part in the same game at the same time and all are present at that time on one or other of those premises, and

  (b)the draw takes place on one or other of those premises while the game is being played, and

  (c)any claim of one of the players to have won is indicated to all the other players before the next number is called,

  then, if the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled, section 12(1) of this Act shall have effect in relation to that game as if those different premises were the same premises.
  (2A) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) of this section, in relation to a game of bingo played simultaneously on different premises, are that—

  (a)the aggregate amount paid to players as winnings in respect of that game does not exceed the aggregate amount of the stakes hazarded by the players in playing that game, and

  (b)the aggregate amount paid to players as winnings in respect of that game, together with the aggregate amount paid to players as winnings in respect of all games of bingo which, in the circumstances specified in that subsection, have previously been played in the same week and have been so played on premises consisting of, or including any of, those premises, does not exceed £1,000.

  (2B) Where subsection (2) of this section has effect in relation to a game of bingo played simultaneously on different premises, then, for the purposes of the application of subsections (2) and (3) of section 12 of this Act in relation to each of those premises, regard shall be had only to such of the players as are present on those particular premises.
  Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 17, in page 14, line 24, at beginning insert:
  'Without prejudice to the operation (where applicable) of subsections (2) to (2B) of this section';
  and Amendment No. 18, in page 14, line 25, at end insert 'particular'.
  Amendment No. 13 is a substantial one, and represents a concession which I was invited to make by the Committee. Although I may not have gone as far as the Committee wanted, it is a concession on the original Bill. Clause 12(1), by providing that no one shall participate in gaming if he is not present on the premises at the time that the gaming takes place, prohibits the practice of "linked bingo". Linked bingo is a relatively new phenomenon. It is a game in which a number of clubs join together with the object of increasing the totality of the stakes and so the value of the prizes to be derived from them. It was represented in Committee that these linked games between different clubs should be allowed, but subject to the strict limit—which the Minister of State to the Treasury, when Under-Secretary gave—that no club might in a single week join in linked games in which the aggregate of the total prizes exceeded £1,000.
  When I was discussing bingo on Second Reading I was not thinking of these linked games. There is a lesson to be learned here about the speed with which these things can mushroom. I watch one club each week to see what is happening. I will not identify it. There is no doubt that both the size and scale of the operations are increasing quite rapidly and that the harmless game of housey-housey which I played in the Andrew and which I thought, when I was speaking about bingo on Second Reading, was a harmless family game is not the same as the game which one now finds in operation. My education has certainly been improved in this regard. Should I say that it has been improved or worsened?
  The Amendment is designed to confine the concession to clubs which are licensed for bingo alone. To prevent constant pressure being brought to bear to increase the stipulated maximum of £1,000, the customary power to vary limits of this kind by regulation has been deliberately omitted by me. Linked bingo
  134
  —I say something controversial now, but I believe it to be true—has developed in defiance of the spirit of the 1963 Act. Some would argue that it has also developed in defiance of the letter of that Act. It has developed so as to attract players by prizes which are higher than any one club could hope to produce from its attendances. It converts bingo from a moderate and relatively innocuous game of a neighbourly kind, which is what it was, into a large-scale activity in which many thousands of people who have never met, who do not know one another and who are never likely to know one another, compete for prizes which are far from moderate and which tend all the time to increase with the additional linkages that go on.
  It has far less of the character of gaming than of a lottery; and one run entirely for the profit of private promoters for prizes far in excess of the very small sums allowed under the 1963 Act, under which the total value of tickets or chances may not exceed £750. Bingo played on a single club's premises is as much a lottery as gaming, but, in so far as it conforms to the laws relating to gaming, the 1963 Act frees it from the prohibition of lotteries contained in that Act.
  On the standard which I have been discussing—of clubs joining together to give reasonable prizes—the maximum of £1,000 is a generous one. I know that this is disputed by some, but only the very largest clubs can expect an attendance of 4,000 people and the level of staking is well below the average of 5s. per person which I have adopted for this calculation.
  The new subsection (2) lays down the essential elements. All the players must be present on premises licensed for bingo and the draw must take place on those premises during the game so that the whole of the activity can be kept under the surveillance of the enforcing authorities. Any claim by a player that he has won must be indicated to all the other players before the next number is called. This must be done simultaneously. It can be done by various relaying devices, closed television circuits and so on. If clubs cannot devise such means, they have no need to take up these games.
  It is not sufficient that games should be played separately in different premises,

  135
  with the proceedings timed and recorded so as to determine the prize winners. I understand that this is called "The Golden Scoop", which has already been declared by the courts to be illegal because it does not constitute gaming. It is necessary, therefore, to insist on the principle of simultaneous play if that activity is to be given any colour of gaming; otherwise the concession would trespass outside the sphere of gaming.
  Mr. Buck: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to help small clubs. He must be aware that this is impracticable, that it will kill the linked game and that it will therefore be of no assistance whatever to the small club.
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not know that at all. Indeed, we will probably find linked games going on. I have no doubt that already discussions are taking place between those who are primarily concerned to see how they can meet the proposals contained in the new subsection. The hon. Gentleman underestimates both their desire to do this and their ingenuity in findings ways and means of doing it.
  The new subsection (2A) contains the conditions to be applied to linked games. These are that all stakes must be returned in winnings and that the aggregate prizes in a game, together with the aggregate of any previous games played in the same week, must not exceed £1,000 in the same licensed premises. This seems a realistic prize, on the basis on which we have, as a Committee and in the House, drawn up specially relaxed regulations to cover bingo.
  When I introduced the Bill I made it clear then that I did not wish to insist on the same harsh provisions to be applied to bingo as to gaming. It is important, when drawing up rules, that we should preserve the essential character of the game of bingo as I understood it, as I still understand it and as I would like to see it played. If it is to develop into really big business, the operations of the gaming laws must apply. But if it is kept broadly along the lines which I have indicated, and which represent a substantial concession to points of view put forward, then I believe that we shall be both meeting the desires of the pro-
  136
  moters as well as preserving for the public the sort of safeguards which are necessary in this matter.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Buck: It is interesting to hear the latest version of the Home Secretary's view of bingo. Apparently since Second Reading he has learned about linked bingo and now believes that it is no longer a cosy family game. Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) referred to the right hon. Gentleman's naivety. It might seem presumptuous of me to do likewise, but I must say that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have so altered his view of bingo since learning about the linked form of the game.
  On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman drew a clear distinction between bingo—which he described as essentially a harmless family game—and hard gaming. I am sure that he is right to draw a complete distinction between bingo and hard gaming. On the whole, it is hard gaming which we have up to now been considering, and we have been dealing with the small numbers of people who indulge in hard gaming and staking relatively large sums, and some of those people perhaps become compulsive gamblers and ruin themselves.
  But now, with bingo, we are dealing with an enormous number of people. No fewer than 8 to 10 million of the people of this country are members of bingo clubs and play bingo with a greater or lesser degree of regularity, but they are staking only very small stakes—6s. to 8s. during the course of an evening, as the Home Secretary talked about. That is about the average figure. In Colchester, it is marginally higher. In the major bingo hall there the average stake is slightly higher at around 10s. It is a sign, perhaps, of the healthy financial position people achieved in what are called by some the 13 wasted years.
  However, this is totally different from hard gambling, for we have 8 to 10 million people playing bingo regularly and enjoying it, but it is not a family game, and it is surprising that the Home Secretary should apparently seriously think that it is, as he said on Second Reading that it was. He called it a family game, but I do not think that was an appropriate description. If, as he says,

  137
  he keeps an eye regularly on one bingo club he might have thought it an odd description to call it a family game— when finding several thousands of people playing it in what was once a cinema. But though not a family game, it is an innocuous game.
  Are we being sensible by eliminating the linked game of bingo? In my submission, that is precisely what the Amendment would do; it would, in effect, eliminate the linked game. How did the Home Secretary arrive at this figure of £1,000 a week? We asked in Committee for information about this. What scientific evidence is there that this is the appropriate and right figure? Or has somebody in the Home Office just taken a figure and doubled it or halved it? What basis is there for suggesting that this is the right figure? Why do we want to eliminate the linked game at all?
  Is there any evidence that the linked game has been carried on in a corrupt way? I have never heard any such suggestion. I have heard suggestions about punctured ping-pong balls in bingo halls —small halls; but I have not heard about it in relation to the big, reputable people. I know from personal experience that at the local bingo hall the equipment is every night scrutinised by the regulars with quite amazing attention, and people are brought on the stage to examine it.
  There could be no opportunity, in my view, in a major bingo hall for any corruption, and certainly not within the linked game, for which, under the Bill, we provide an added safeguard, because there will be the overall supervision of the Gaming Board. Is there any appropriate evidence that there has ever been anything corrupt about the linked game? I suggest, no.
  If the Home Secretary is worried—and I think that there may appropriately be some cause for concern here—about the escalation of the amount, let us have a reasonable amount, not £1,000 a week, which will make the thing totally uneconomic and absurd. I would suggest that the appropriate criterion for the limit on the amount should be, that it should be not one who disrupts a person's life, which alters the whole pattern of his life —not the sort of amount which can be won on the football pools or which, no doubt, will be able to be won on the
  138
  national lottery in due course. The amount should be one which constitutes a pleasant windfall out of which a person can pay off the mortgage on his house or buy a new car.
  In an Amendment to this Amendment, which is not being called, we have suggested winnings of £1,000 in one game. I put forward an Amendment in Committee for £3,000. Some of my more puritanical colleagues persuaded me that £1,000 might be more appropriate. I agree with limiting the sum to £1,000 for a single winning, but setting a limit of £1,000 in a week is not practical. I think that it will mean that there will be no linked game of bingo in the future.
  The Home Secretary will not help the small bingo halls by the Amendment. The requirement under subsection (2)(c) that any claim of one of the players to have won is indicated to all the others before the next number is called will make expensive machinery necessary. If the small halls could overcome the difficulty of finding a practical way of meeting that requirement the amount they could give through a linked prize could be very small over a week. It would be nowhere near the sort of prizes which could still be paid out by the big bingo halls, where at present several hundreds of pounds are paid out on the principal game in an evening in some halls.
  I am bitterly disappointed at the so-called concession, because it will do no good. It will provide no help for the small bingo hall and will probably benefit the larger operator instead. By limiting the amount of the prize to such an absurdly low sum the Home Secretary is taking the "go" out of bingo. He is taking a lot of excitement and zip out of it. In the hall where I have seen bingo played in my constituency I have watched large numbers of people enjoying themselves extremely innocently. When the linked game comes up there is an intensification of the atmosphere, an excitement which I do not consider harmful.
  The Home Secretary says that he does not want to encourage people to play bingo so much.
  Mr. Callaghan indicated dissent.
  Mr. Buck: If the right hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong to suggest that, why does not he allow the halls to

  139
  advertise? I understood that he wanted to keep down the level of bingo-playing. If I am wrong, perhaps he will correct me. If not, he has no answer to the point that he should have allowed advertising of bingo. His conduct, all his utterances from a standing position, if not from a sitting position, and the Amendment, lead us to suppose that he wishes to clamp down on the amount of bingo and other gaming.
  In the bingo hall in my constituency that I have visited I have seen old people enjoying themselves, and I wonder what they would be doing if they were not in a bingo hall with other people. They would probably be at home before their television sets, perhaps fast asleep and utterly lonely. It is probably unrealistic to think that they would be indulging in worthwhile activities elsewhere, although perhaps hon. Members opposite are more optimistic. They are enjoying themselves there in a social atmosphere and I do not see that that is a great evil.
  By this "concession", which is no concession, the Home Secretary is taking away a certain amount of pleasure from the many thousands of people who play bingo. It is a great pity that he is seeking virtually to eliminate the linked game. It puts a zip into bingo, which is enjoyed by many people throughout the country.
  Mr. Oakes: I am sorry that in a debate which has been conducted very well in Committee and here from both sides the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) should use slogans such as "taking the 'go' out of bingo". The House should appreciate the tremendous concessions my right hon. Friend has made on bingo since Second Reading. Does the House realise that until the Bill becomes an Act it is doubtful whether linked bingo should be played at all? It is of doubtful legality.
  Far from taking the "go" out of bingo, the Bill and the concessions my right hon. Friend has made establish it as a proper legal game, provided that it is within certain limits. Though I welcome this concession, there are one or two aspects that I do not fully understand. These concern the limit of £1,000 per week.
  One of the difficulties is that there are so many different forms of playing bingo and linked bingo that it is difficult to
  140
  get a provision that would adequately cover the situation. I understand that people do not go to a bingo hall to play linked bingo. They go to play bingo. During the evening, as an added attraction, there is a link-up between various bingo halls. If only £1,000 in a week is to be paid out in prizes, I do not know how the bingo operators will be able to work the provision.
  Supposing that on a Monday they have paid out a certain amount of money in prizes on linked bingo and then on Wednesday or Thursday a prize comes along, what do they do with the people in the hall? In bingo, all the stakes must be returned as prize money. Therefore, if this is to be on a weekly and not a per game basis, it means that the operator must either refuse admission to a certain number of people or he must tell those already in the hall, "We are linking with other halls but I regret that as we have overrun the limit only a certain number of you can play." This would be an impossible imposition on an operator and on the bingo players.
  Obviously, there must be a limit because, with 8 to 10 million bingo players in the country, one could visualise what would happen technologically with the link-up of more and more halls. It would cease to be anything like the game we know today. It would cease to be linked bingo and would become a lottery on a grand scale if a very large number of halls were linked together. I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the limit again, not necessarily as a limit in itself but as a limit per game and not per week. I cannot see how this provision could be worked on a weekly basis.
  Mr. Kitson: I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes). This provision would be completely unworkable. The Home Secretary was nodding when his hon. Friend was speaking, so presumably he agrees that it would be unworkable.
  Surely we are getting this matter out of proportion. Spotting the ball in a Sunday newspaper competition can win a person £5,000. In a fashion competition, which is really only a form of lottery in getting numbers in the right order, a person can win £5,000. The attraction of the totalisator is the jackpot. In gambling of any form, the attraction is the large prize. The figure of £1,000

  141
  is far too low in terms of other prizes. The attraction, if we have a national lottery, will be the large prizes. The attraction in football pools is not the small dividends, but the large ones. To think in terms of £1,000 as the total amount in a week in a bingo hall in linked bingo betting is getting the matter out of all proportion.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first big jackpot winner at Ascot last year happened to be someone from Cardiff who was in Cardiff at the time. He won £72,000.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have the feeling that no one will be calling "House" during this debate, because I do not think that anybody can be a winner on this subject.
  The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) tried to suggest that because we were concerned about this problem we were being quite unrealistic in the sense of the opportunity that people have to play spot the ball and all the other innocuous forms of time-wasting that we indulge in.
  I must admit I have never managed to work out how spot the ball winners are picked, because the air must be positively thick with balls. However, we are discussing linked games at the moment. Surely the argument that spot the ball is a nice quiet family game is, in effect, true in the sense that it is done at home. Therefore, the comparison that the hon. Member was trying to make was quite ridiculous: bingo is not a family game in that sense.
  I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might be regretting that he has achieved such fame as to be included in the attractive brochure by the National Association of Bingo Clubs. I do not know whether it will do him good in an election address, but the quote he made about bingo being a harmless family game will, I am quite sure, be one of the things that will be used against him for years to come, because there is no doubt that linked bingo is not a harmless family game in the sense that my right hon. Friend meant.
  We seem to be covering so many aspects of gaming and gambling in the Bill that we really have to break down bingo and linked bingo into the type
  142
  of person who indulges in it. For example, I always find it amusing, when listening to one of the hon. Members here wondering whether the hours for gaming clubs should be 12 or all day, or whether they should finish at six o'clock in the morning, because I am quite sure that some ignorant people would imagine that the only people who play bingo at these hours would be some coloured immigrants living on public money with no intention of finding a job.
  There are some decent, honest people who live normal lives and do go to work who indulge in bingo, and we have to examine seriously the social implications of linked bingo. I have had representations made to me, as have other hon. Members, showing a certain amount of sympathy on the question of linked bingo, but we have to face up to the logic of the argument that there should be no limitation. If there should be no limitation on linked bingo it seems to me that we are opening the floodgates for commercialism, with take-over bids in a big way. The small proprietor would be out on his neck.
  We are concerned about the small club, the kind of community club that perhaps would be regarded, quite rightly, as a harmless way of passing time for all people in the community. I think that the Members opposite are doing a disservice to the cause they are championing if they suggest that we can leave it in an unrestricted fashion.
  Mr. Buck: We have not.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) is not, I know, suggesting that it should be unrestricted, but I think that, equally, he would agree that it is a compromise that is not desirable to some extent, for reasons which I will not go into. I think that everyone accepts that to leave this matter without some form of control would be disastrous, but we are faced with the dilemma of how to achieve some form of control which makes sense and is administratively practical. I am not sure whether the Opposition's proposal is a practical one. It would not do anything to prevent the commercialisation of the game itself. It would merely mean that there would be more prize winners. The inducement

  143
  for big organisations to take over small clubs would not be eliminated.
  Would it be possible to limit the number of cards a person can buy, or to specify the number of premises which can be linked? I fear that the Home Office and my right hon. Friend have not made sufficient examination of what I think most of us have in mind. We want some variety. Bingo is an absolutely boring game. It would drive most people "nuts" if they played it for six or seven days a week, but it is a sad reflection on our affluent society that apparently many people enjoy doing this.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to look at this matter again with a view to finding some way of limiting the number of clubs which can be linked. That might be an effective way of avoiding commercialisation because it would have some effect on the amount of prize money. I shall support my right hon. Friend, although I think that the Government Amendment is a bit of a shambles and that the matter has not been properly thought out. I would be prepared to back it if for no other reason than that it is a warning to commercial proprietors that we want to limit and control the practice of expanding the amount of prize money which can be paid through linked games.
  I accept that there is no question of corruption; I do not think that anyone has suggested that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to look at this problem again, bearing in mind the principles which most of us want to apply, and which I am sure he shares.
  Mr. Deedes: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has introduced the point which I wanted to make to the Home Secretary. I am not a passionate advocate of linked bingo. I do not feel qualified to speak about linked bingo. I doubt whether we know enough about the implications of the game to start determining in detail how it should run in the months and years ahead.
  I enjoin on the Home Secretary a measure of consistency. I am not comparing the Amendment proposed here with the pool at Ascot or the prizes given elsewhere, although my hon. Friend had a perfectly valid point. I mean consist-
  144
  ency in respect of the Bill. As we have gone through the Bill there has emerged a pattern in which matters have tended to get into three compartments; matters which are for decision by us; matters which are for decision by the Board, and matters which are for decision by the Home Secretary. The question one asks is, by whom is this matter to be decided? I doubt whether it comes within the Home Secretary's category. It seems to be pre-eminently something which will have to be decided later on, or at least varied later on in the light of experience by the Board, possibly in consultation with the Home Secretary.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said that we had moved a long way from Second Reading; he is quite right. The Home Office conceded a £1,000 limit at the Committee stage. By what stages did the Home Office arrive at the new compromise decision? At Second Reading in February there was to be no linked bingo. At Committee stage it was to be limited to £1,000 in a week. Will the Gaming Board after the first six months of its existence find that we have now hit on the right sum? It is doubtful.
  I am suspicious about the manner in which the decision has been reached. We are giving the Board powers to deal with the livelihood and careers of croupiers; it has tremendous powers to do that and to deal with a number of establishments in conjunction with local licensing, but apparently it will not be fit to determine the size of a linked bingo kitty. This is what I mean by inconsistency, allocating the wrong functions to the wrong people.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said that there may be other ways in which this can be limited to relieve the evils which the Home Secretary has in mind and at the same time to provide the added excitement which most bingo players want. Something is urgently needed to relieve the monotony of playing bingo on the ordinary level, and I have some sympathy with those who want to see a big prize at some point in the evening.
  With all respect to the Home Secretary's advisers and the consultations that I am sure have gone on, how sure is the Home Secretary that he has it right? What crystal was used for this decision?

  145
  May I suggest that we award to those who have to make the decisions the right decisions in the right places, and leave this to the Board to decide a little later on.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) as to whether this is a matter for the Board. I have been encouraged by the view expressed by many hon. Members that this proposal would drive out linked bingo. I have been appalled by the cri de coeur, the passionate plea by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), on behalf of commercialised bingo. Of all the subjects that we could be concerned about in the House this is the one which wrings my withers least. I feel obliged to regard the hon. Member with some anxiety when he keeps his passion for this subject.
  The cammercialised exploitation of this form of activity, like many others, has destroyed what was a perfectly reasonable family or local affair. Local old people's bingo and other activities for raising money for a multitude of worthy causes are gone, destroyed utterly by the commercial development of these major units which pretend that this is all done for the welfare of elderly people. The Rank Organisation—one talks about hypocrisy; some there might qualify for the term—came to me explaining that the whole of their vast organisation in the town which I represent was very largely for the benefit of old people and extolled the great welfare services that they ran.
  I do not deny that there are some welfare aspects to it. Nor do I suggest that this is a crooked operation. But any claims on welfare grounds are wholly misleading, and the operations in modern bingo halls and cinemas, even more so when linked with others all over the country, put the matter on a wholly different level.
  9.0 p.m.
  Some people try to give the impression that this sort of arrangement applies only to one game. However, in one form or another bingo is being played all the time. One cannot have a sandwich or drink without some form of bingo being on top of one. If one goes for a tour in the country, bingo is played on the
  146
  train. It is all a commercial operation run to make profit and, if this provision helps either to restrict or end linked bingo, which perhaps is more vicious than other forms, I shall be quite happy about it.
  My anxiety about the Amendment is concerned with the weakening of my right hon. Friend in making concessions. I went to meet all my bingo committed friends in my constituency—no doubt they are my enemies now—and argued the case as I saw it. Behind my back, I find my right hon. Friend making concessions in all directions. However, my concern is the other way. My anxiety is whether he has gone too far and we are spending a lot of time expressing fears about something which should not worry us.
  Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I sympathise with the intentions of the Amendment, but I feel that it is perhaps something of a shambles, because I do not think that it will achieve what it is setting out to do. Undoubtedly, the aim of my right hon. Friend is to stop the escalation of bingo playing, but I do not think that the Amendment will achieve that, because, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, people will play bingo for almost anything, irrespective of the prize money involved.
  If one wishes to contain the sport, if I may use that term, the direction in which my right hon. Friend should aim is the amount which an individual should be allowed to invest in or stake on the sport—
  Mr. Blenkinsop: As one who is interested in sport, I do urge my hon. Friend not to use that word to describe bingo.
  Mr. Roberts: I feel that the aim should be to, limit the amount which an individual is allowed to invest or stake. It could be done to some extent by limiting the number of tickets which could be bought. An even better way would be to limit the total money which each individual may stake. However, limiting the prize money to the amount suggested in the Amendment is neither practicable or workable.
  Perhaps £1,000 per game might work out very much better on a linked basis. We have to accept that people who go

  147
  to halls to play games of this sort do so with two aims in mind. The first is that of getting some entertainment. The second is the chance of a fairly large win. If they cannot get this by having link odds against their investment their only alternative is to try to increase the size of their investment. I feel that the Home Secretary's target should be the size of the total investment. This Amendment will not solve the problem in any way whatever. I would feel much happier at allowing some link-up of the order of £1,000 a game or some figure of that kind.
  Mr. Carlisle: The first comment I would make on the speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) is that he has advocated the wording of an Amendment which unfortunately has not been called. I appreciate the reasons why it has not been called. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South has put forward the argument that we put forward about limiting the prize to £1,000 in any game.
  This has been a somewhat extraordinary debate in which the Home Secretary has been supported by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) who, in announcing that he would support the right hon. Gentleman, said that the Amendment was unworkable; the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South, who, in saying he would vote for the Amendment, said that it was a shambles: and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) who is now convinced that the Amendment does not do what the Home Secretary believes that it does.
  The real reason why we on this side will vote against the Amendment is not because we do not believe that linked bingo should be permitted, but because we are satisfied that the Home Secretary's proposal is a shambles, as it has been described by one of his hon. Friends. Should we, with the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, win the Division on this Amendment, we would propose in another place to put into the Bill what we believe are the right proposals on this game.
  Coming back to the question of linked bingo, and accepting that these proposals will kill the idea of linked bingo, I ask the Home Secretary: why does this House wish to prevent it? What is the
  148
  evil in linked bingo to which we should object? I understand that the average stake money is sixpence. Surely it is not suggested that linked bingo is the kind of thing which encourages people to spend more than they can afford. The only objection must be that whereas in a house game for sixpence one may win £50 or £100, in the linked game one may win several hundred pounds or possibly over £1,000. If that is so, the only evil which we are trying to prevent by the Home Secretary's method in the Amendment is the winning of large sums of money for very small stakes.
  To a great degree I have sympathy with that aim. I said in Committee, as did many of my hon. Friends, that I do not think it is socially acceptable that people, on the turn of a coin, the win of a horse or whatever other means, should win sums of money which overnight uproot and change their way of life, because I believe it brings hardship rather than comfort.
  An Hon. Member: For sixpence?
  Mr. Carlisle: This is the point. At sixpence a time in the national game— and some games are 1s. 6d.—the objection of the Home Secretary is that by that means people can win sums far in excess of what should be permitted. That is the argument. I cannot see how that argument can possibly be justified by the Home Secretary, as a member of the Government, at the same time advocating a national lottery in which the sums likely to be won are far in excess of anything which can be won on linked bingo. I believe that there is an evil in sums completely out of proportion to the amount of money staked, but I do not see how one can bring in such a provision relating to linked bingo and yet allow pools, Premium Bonds and national lotteries in the way that we do. If that is the objection, I believe that it was met by our Amendment which would have limited the prize to £1,000 rather than, as this Amendment does, limit the stake money in a week to £1,000.
  I come back to the question of it being unworkable, and it is surely unworkable for this reason: how is it possible to limit the amount of money which is to be paid out in prize money to a definite sum per week at the same stage as one is saying that any money accepted

  149
  as stake money must be paid out in prize money? This is impossible to achieve. We cannot prevent the amount of money going up if at the same time we say it must be 100 per cent. of the money taken in, other than by the means suggested of having someone go round the hall saying, "Stop! We cannot take money from the next lady because we find that we have hit our £1,000 for the week"—though how they are to know what has been taken in the other halls, heaven only knows. I believe, therefore, that it is unworkable.
  I will explain why, for the same reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), I come to an exactly opposite conclusion and why I believe linked bingo should be allowed. Wishing to limit the prizes, he expressed concern that the existence of linked bingo helped commercialisation and the big men at the cost of the small. I believe that the effect of preventing linked bingo is likely to have an exactly opposite effect. I will give an example.
  Let us take one of the biggest national companies concerned in bingo. It has a hall in Streatham which holds 2,500 people. Play in that hall alone can and does produce cash prizes of something in the region of £250 to £300; whereas a hall which has 200 people presumably produces house prizes in the region of about £10. The small hall does not lose by the linked game, but linking means that those in the small hall have an equal opportunity—and this should appeal to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) who is so keen on national lotteries—with the person in the big hall to win one of the larger prizes. Thus, the small hall is helped by being entitled to take part in that opportunity of winning a major prize. I believe this has been proved to be so. I am not going into it at this time, but there are figures which I believe show that for the two major organisations which run linked bingo the first prize appears to work out at between £500 and £1,000 in an evening game.
  I do not believe there is any serious evil in linked bingo providing we limit, as I believe we should, the maximum amount of the first prize. Because the Home Secretary, with respect, believes there is something abhorrent about linked bingo, he is merely going to remove from many
  150
  people a perfectly acceptable and to them enjoyable pastime without any possible benefits at all for society. All he is doing is removing from them the opportunity to indulge in one form of a lottery whereas at the same time this Government themselves encourages people to take part in many others. I do not believe there is any advantage in this Amendment. I feel that linked bingo with reasonable prizes should be allowed because I believe it gives enjoyment and amusement to many people.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I hope that the House will not think me unduly paternalistic, or too puritanical, or prudish if I say that I am largely in agreement with nearly everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop). I believe that the House should look at this question against the background of the substantial concession which has been made to bingo interests and bingo players. I think that it would be proper for those who advocate very much higher sums, and who charge the Government with hypocrisy, to bear in mind that there were strong pressures on the Government not to make any concession at all, or, if a concession was made, to limit it to a very much smaller one.
  Secondly, the question should be considered against the background of the tremendous jungle growth which has occurred in the development of bingo over the last seven or eight years. Since 1960, about 10 million people have become members of bingo clubs. Britain now has more than 2,000 bingo clubs. In France, there are about 150 gaming clubs, and I venture to suggest that it is against such a canvas that we must consider this issue.
  The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) asked what evil there was in this system. It might perhaps have been proper for him to have considered the words of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who said that gaming lowered the intellect. It is not for me to argue whether it does or does not, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that at some point where bingo consumes more and more of the time of the public and more and more of their assets, must not the question be asked: has it, or has it not, reached an unbearable point?

  151
  Parliament must obviously take heed of the development which has taken place over the last few years and ask itself whether the time has come to seek to contain the very rapid growth of bingo. It is a game which, in itself, would appear to be intrinsically attractive. It was played in Roman times. It was exported from Italy as "Lotto" in or about 1780, and it has consistently been popular in many countries. If the point is reached when a very high proportion of the incomes of ordinary people, a very high proportion of their time, and a very high proportion of their interest is taken up by bingo, does it not assume the proportions of a social peril?
  The point has been made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Mr. Kitson) and reiterated by the hon. Member for Runcorn that the system proposed is unworkable. We do not accept that argument. Our object is to control the scale of this activity, and a limit on the maximum prize will not do that, since bingo can be played to provide whatever number of prizes the organisers choose.
  This is the rock upon which so much of our gambling legislation in the last eight years has foundered. To make certain that the concession does not get out of hand, we must limit the number of prizes in a game and the maximum in each. If we were to accept an alternative system, this would bring us to the same point but on an ascending spiral. We see no reason why clubs participating in a linked game should not be required to limit the number of books sold so as to correspond in value to the number of prizes intended to be offered.
  The point is the price of each book, which might be 1s. if 20,000 were expected to be sold or 5s. if it were 4,000. If the clubs found it impossibly embarrassing or difficult to let the books run out, so that some intending players were disappointed, or to devise some selection for this contingency, the only remedy would be to over-insure, in the knowledge that some books were liable to remain unsold and that the ultimate prizes might be somewhat below the £1,000 maximum. We have chosen a maximum which is high by the standards which we are applying so as to leave a proper margin for this.
  152
  It has been suggested that it would be proper to transfer the fundamental decisions here to the Board. This is a social question of great magnitude which will be of increasing importance. It cannot be palmed off upon a Board which is not responsible to the electorate. This is a decision which the Government must make—
  Sir S. McAdden: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a social question of great magnitude and must not be palmed off on the Board, yet, earlier, the social question of whether cabarets and casinos should operate in the same building was palmed off on the Board. Why does he make this distinction now?
  Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is under a misconception. The question of cabarets has not been palmed off on the Board. The decision, essentially, will lie with the Home Secretary and with Parliament. There is nothing in the Bill relating to cabarets in that connection. The Home Secretary is empowered to make regulations—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come back to bingo.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) made the interesting point that a better way of limiting the rapid growth of bingo was to put some restriction on the number of clubs which would be allowed to take part in a link. This is certainly attractive and it has been considered by the Government, but hon. Members can probably see the great difficulties which it would create. It would inevitably lead to much bigger clubs, which would be a complete defeat for the cri de coeur which has been put forward on behalf of small, struggling clubs, which can provide prizes of only £15, £20 and £25.
  The Government have made substantial concessions to bingo interests and players in Clause 20. It is facile and unfair to argue on the basis of those concessions that bingo should be dealt with again in a more liberal way. The background to the situation is that a form of gaming which at the moment is almost certainly illegal has, by the Bill, been made legal, but we have placed a certain limit. We have done this after considerable reflection. I believe that if we were

  153
  to go further we would be imperilling society on account of the great potential for the further rapid development of this game of bingo.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 182 Noes 127.

  Division No. 210.]

  AYES

  [9.25 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Frenon, Reginald

  Oakes, Gordon

  Alldritt, Walter

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Ogden, Eric

  Anderson, Donald

  Garrett, W. E.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Archer, Peter

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Orme, Stanley

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Paget, R. T.

  Barnes, Michael

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Baxter, William

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilng, William

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hannan, William

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Blackburn, F.

  Harper, Joseph

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Pentland, Norman

  Boston, Terence

  Hattersley, Roy

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Boyden, James

  Hazell, Bert

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Heffer Eric S.

  Probert, Arthur

  Bradley, Tom

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Randall, Harry

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hooley, Frank

  Rees, Meriyn

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

  Hooson Emlyn

  Reynolds, G. W.

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Buchan, Norman

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Robinson, w. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Rose, Paul

  Cant, R. B.

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Carmichael, Neil

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

  Shaw, Aronld (Ilford, S.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

  Sheldon, Robert

  Chapman, Donald

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Coe, Denis

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Lawson, George

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Ledger, Ron

  Slater, Joseph

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Lestor, Miss John

  Small, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lever, Harold (cheetham)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stonehouse, John

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Luard, Evan

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lyon, Alexander w. (York)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  McBride, Neil

  Taverne, Dick

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  MacColl, James

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Dempsey, James

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Wallace, George

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Dickens, James

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Doig, Peter

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

  Weitzman, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  Manuel, Archie

  Wellbeloved James

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wells, William(Walsall, N.)

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

  Marquand, David

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Ellis, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wilis,Rt.Hn.George(Edinburgh,E.)

  Ensor, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Winnick, David

  Evans, Abert (Isington, S.W.)

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

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Woof, Robert

  Fernyhough, E.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Yates, Victor

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moyle, Roland

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Newens, Stan

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Forrester, John

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Clegg, Walter

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

  Body, Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Costain, A. P.

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Balniel, Lord

  Burden, F. A.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Bell, Ronald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dance, James

  Bitten, John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Jopling, Michael

  Peyton, John

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kirk, Peter

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pym, Francis

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Eden, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Emery, Peter

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

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

  Fortescue, Tim

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain

  Silvester, Frederick

  Foster, Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Maddan, Martin

  Speed, Keith

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stainton, Keith

  Gower, Raymond

  Maude, Angus

  steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Grant, Anthony

  Mawby, Ray

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

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

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mills, Peter (Tornington)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gurden, Harold

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Temple, John M.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Tilney, John

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  More, Jasper

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Wall, patrick

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hiley, Joseph

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Webster, David

  Hogg, nt. Hn. Quintin

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hordern, Peter

  Neave, Airey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hornby, Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hunt, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Orr-Ewmg, Sir Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Mr. Bernard Wcatherill and

  Jenkin, Patrick (woodford)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Further Amendments made: No. 14, in page 14, line 11, leave out ' 12(2)' and insert '12(3)'.
  No. 15, in page 14, line 12, leave out from 'from' to end of line 18 and insert:
  "he was admitted" to "the premises in question, and " were omitted, and for the words " forty-eight hours" there were substituted the words " twenty-four hours ", and
  (b) paragraph (b) were omitted'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 14, line 23, at end insert:
  (4) In relation to any bingo club premises, section 19 of this Act shall have effect as if, in subsection (2) of that section, for the words from ' and consists of' to the end of the subsection, there were substituted the words ' and is a function of a kind prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection '.
  The Amendment operates on Clause 19(2) in such a way as to confine, in respect of premises licensed for bingo only, the obligation on gaming operatives to obtain certificates of approval from the Board to those who fulfill functions of a kind that may be prescribed by regulations. It is recognised that to require every operative in a bingo club, and in particular the large number of usherettes, to obtain certificates of approval would be unnecessarily burdensome to some of the clubs, to the individuals and to the Board.
  On the other hand, there are certain bingo operatives such as callers who clearly should be certificated. Since it is not possible at this stage to identify precisely what kinds of operative may need to be vetted by the Board, and since bingo, like other games, is liable to evolve, it has been thought best to leave the definition to regulations to be made after consultation with the Board.
  Mr. Buck: I referred in passing to the Amendment when we earlier gave the Board the arbitrary power to define a person who must be certificated for the purposes of operating any gaming. We take the view that it is right that the Board should be able to say that certain categories of people who work in bingo halls do not have to be certificated. We raised this point in Committee, and the Amendment has been put down as a result of assurances given by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
  It would be absurd that usherettes or people who sell the cards in bingo halls and later adopt a different role, such as selling ice cream, should have to be approved by the Gaming Board. No doubt in due course the Board will lay down the specific activities which must be certificated and the whole of the rest of the staff will be outside the ambit of this type of restriction. Therefore, we welcome the Amendment.

  157
  The only thing that worries me somewhat is that we are putting considerable burdens on the Board. If we had our time again on the Bill it might have been better to exclude bingo from the whole of this restrictive legislation. But it is too late to consider that now.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 17, in page 14, line 24, at beginning insert:
  'Without prejudice to the operation (where applicable) of subsections (2) to (2B) of this section'.
  No. 18, in page 14, line 25, at end insert 'particular'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan]

Clause 21

  FURTHER POWERS TO REGULATE LICENSED CLUB PREMISES
  Amendment made: No. 100, in page 15, line 30, at end insert:
  (4) Without prejudice to section 18 of this Act or to any powers exercisable by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section or by virtue of Schedule 2 to this Act, the Secretary of State may by regulations impose restrictions with respect to the hours during which gaming will be permitted to take place on premises in respect of which a licence under this Act is for the time being in force.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 22

  OFFENCES UNDER PART II
  Amendment made: No. 101, in page 15, line 33, leave out 'or subsection (2)' end insert:
  'subsection (2) or subsection (4)'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 143, in page 16, line 10, leave out '£400' and insert '£1,000'.
  Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 144, also in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), in page 16, line 10, leave out from '£400' to end of line 11.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: My right hon and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) dealt with part of this argument in Committee. The short point has been much emphasised by the Amendments which the Home Secretary has put
  158
  down. Our purpose is to secure that, instead of imprisoning those who infringe these provisions, we should hit them harder in the pocket. We propose to raise the fine from £400 if need be to £1,000 which, in a serious contravention, would not be excessive for gaming establishments. We would remove altogether the question of imprisonment under Clause 22.
  Such a proposal has not been suggested for other Clauses, but I submit that this thread should run throughout the Bill. The Government are to give arbitrary power to the Board to strike off altogether and revoke the licence of an operator. The operators will have to be persons of impeccable respectability and integrity in order to obtain licences. The Board may strike off the premises and the gaming apparatus is subject to forfeit. The offending operator can be heavily punished by a fine as well as having his licence revoked without right of appeal. All these matters have completely changed the character of the Bill as originally set out.
  It is our view, therefore, that we should not have the whole apparatus of sending an offender to prison. Our prisons are crowded and this is not an offence which requires imprisonment, except, of course, where the offender does not meet the fine, a circumstance for which there is provision elsewhere in our law. It is unnecessary to have an alternative of imprisonment. The substantial fine we propose would be sufficient deterrent and an adequate penalty without the need for imprisonment.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has argued that there is no justification for short-term imprisonment. Where a members' club or institute is involved in an offence, the certificate of registration may be withdrawn. A licence holder risks not only cancellation of his licence, but the disqualification of the premises and the withdrawal by the Gaming Board of its certificate of consent in respect of any other licences which he may hold.
  If the Gaming Board is to exercise its powers effectively, it is clearly desirable that a convicting court should have power to mark out the worst cases by a penalty

  159
  more stringent than a fine, and in any case there are circumstances, particularly where a licence holder is personally concerned, in which a mere fine would be inadequate.
  Breaches of Part II of the Bill, such as improper charging or having excessive odds in favour of a bank, might be exceedingly profitable and there are some who might be prepared to risk a fine and a loss of licence for a chance of the quick money to be made before detection. Here it is likely that the risk of a sentence, even though it may have to be a suspended sentence, of imprisonment, would provide a deterrent which the risk of fine would not. Certainly, a mere increase in the maximum fine from £400 to £1,000, as proposed by the Amendment, would be a quite insufficient substitute in such a case.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lastly, the Amendments as they stand are, therefore, unacceptable. We do, however, sympathise with the view that penalties of short terms of imprisonment should be avoided as far as possible. I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman that in this case, different from the position in many other parts of the Bill, there is here no alternative of proceeding by way of indictment with a maximum penalty of two years and an unlimited fine.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: That is why I chose this Clause. Home Secretaries have now for successive years past said that the last thing one should do is to have short terms of imprisonment. We are trying to get rid of the alcoholics and drunks littering up our prisons. I cannot understand the argument for sending a man to prison for 12 to 30 months for a serious offence. Make the fine £2,000, if you think that it is required, but one is not going to sentence a man running a club under Clause 22 to three months' imprisonment. No reasonable magistrate would do it. We have got the strike-off power and all these powers now contained in the Bill in Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to look at this matter again?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should be as brief as possible in their interventions.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I concede that there is considerable merit in what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that it is well worth considering the possibility here of introducing into this part of the Bill the alternative of proceeding by way of indictment. This is a matter which could well be considered in another place.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: On that assurance that the matter will receive detailed consideration, including the possibility of an alternative indictment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23

  POWER OF COURT TO MAKE DISQUALIFICATION ORDER ON CONVICTION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 16, line 37, at end insert
  'prohibiting a licence under this Act from being held in respect of those premises during a period specified in the order'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: Clause 23 provides that
  "Where a person is convicted of an offence committed in respect of any premises under subsection (1) of section 22 of this Act (including that subsection as applied by subsection (4) of that section), the court by which he is convicted may make a disqualification order under this section.
  (2) Subject to the next following subsection, a disqualification order made under this section may, at the discretion of the court, by either—

  (a) an order disqualifying the person convicted, for a period specified in the order, from holding a licence under this Act, or

  (b) an order prohibiting such a licence from being held in respect of the premises in respect of which the offence was committed, or

  (c) an order imposing both such a disqualification and such a prohibition."

  Clause 24 makes provision for appeals and the hearing of other interested parties, such as the landlords, and for the revocation or variation of the Order, etc.
  Either form of disqualification entails cancellation of the licence, but, whereas disqualification of the premises would

  161
  be purely local in effect, disqualification of the licence holder might have much more far-reaching consequences for other premises held by that person throughout the country. These Amendments remove the power of the court to disqualify the holder of the licence while disqualifying the premises.
  Other licence holders to be entrusted would have to be dealt with by Amendments to Schedule 2, which include in the new paragraph 31 a power for the Board, following cancellation of a licence, to apply to the court or the justices to revoke all or any of the certificates of consent issued to the individual so concerned. This amounts to disqualification until such time as the Board may be disposed to issue a new certificate on application. The second power which the Board has to disqualify premises is a power to be left to the courts and the justices because it is maintained that the considerations are entirely local.
  Mr. Buck: The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that these Amendments can be summed up in the following way. The courts now lose the power to disqualify persons and that is transferred to the Gaming Board. They retain power to disqualify premises. That seems to be sensible. It is in line with the whole tenor of the arguments put forward by hon. Members of the Opposition in Committee. We think it right that there should be a powerful and strong Board. The courts in this case should not have the power to disqualify persons because the considerations which arise here are of persons in their corporate sense.
  I have a great respect for magistrates, but I think that it would be unfortunate if they could disqualify a corporate person and the effect was that the whole operations of a large company were to be prevented and that might cause distress. Now the Board is to have this additional power of disqualifying persons the courts should no longer have the power. I welcome these Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

  POWER OF COURT TO MAKE DISQUALIFICATION ORDER ON CONVICTION OF CERTAIN OFFENCES
  Amendments made: No. 19, in page 16, line 37, at end insert:
  'prohibiting a licence under this Act from being held in respect of those premises during a peried specified in the order'.
  No. 20, in page 16, line 38, leave out subsection (2).
  No. 21, in page 17, line 10, leave out 'disqualification or'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 24

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DISQUALIFICATION ORDERS
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 124, in page 17, line 16, at end insert:
  'by a court in England or Wales'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I propose that we consider Amendment No. 125.
  Mr. Ross: The purpose of these Amendments is to make separate provisions for Scotland, on one hand, and England and Wales, on the other, in relation to appeals against disqualification under an order made under Clause 23. The position at the moment is perfectly adequate for England and Wales because Section 83 of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, provides a statutory right of appeal, but that provision does not extend to Scotland.
  Accordingly, the second of these Amendments provides an express right of appeal in relation to Scotland without prejudice to any other form of appeal under Scottish law.
  Mr. Buck: There is a shortage of Scottish lawyers in the House which has been noticed on both sides from time to time. We are in the fortunate position of having some on our side of the House, and one has heard an explanation in precisely the terms which have just been put forward graciously from the other side. It is surprising that this was a matter which was omitted from the Bill in the first

  163
  place. I feel that our Highland friends were somewhat lax in seeing that an important matter such as the suspension of sentence during a period of appeal was not tackled earlier. We are very glad that those north of the Border will now be in precisely the same position as those south of the Border.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 125, in page 17, line 22, at end insert:
  (2) The person on whose conviction a disqualification order was made under section 23 of this Act by a court in Scotland may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against the order as against the conviction; and the disqualification order—

  (a) shall not take effect until the end of the period of fourteen days commencing with the date on which the order was made; and

  (b) if an appeal against the order or the said conviction is taken within the said period, shall not take effect until the date when that appeal is determined or abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned. —[Mr. Ross.]

  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 17, line 23, leave out from 'make' to ' the' in line 24 and insert:
  'an order under that section prohibiting'.
  This is a drafting Amendment which is consequential upon the Amendments made to Clause 24. It supersedes Amendment No. 22.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 23, in page 17, line 32, leave out 'disqualification or'.

Clause 26

  GENERAL RESTRICTIONS
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 19, line 7, at end insert:
  'for use exclusively at a travelling showmen's pleasure fair or'.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment the House can also consider Amendment Nos. 25, 26, 27, 102 and 37.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: The first three Amendments which you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, on which the others are largely consequential, have the effect of
  164
  giving the travelling showmen the same degree of exemption from the provisions requiring machine suppliers to be certificated by the Board, that is Clause 26, and prohibiting profit-sharing arrangements for the supply of machines, that is Clause 27, as the Bill already confers on amusement caterers operating on piers, pleasure grounds and other permanent sites.
  Sir S. McAdden: In speaking to this Amendment I want to speak to the other Amendments to which you have referred, Mr. Speaker, particularly the Amendment to Amendment No. 25, and Amendment No. No. 25. Those two Amendments give expression to an Amendment which I moved in Committee stage.
  I do not know whether it was due to the late stage at which we came to it, or to the inadequacy of my advocacy, but it did not seem to have a great deal of success. Although it is recorded in the proceedings of the committee that I subsequently withdrew the Motion which I proposed, it was not due to any lack of conviction on my part about the cause that I was espousing, but to the fact that I could not get any support from the Committee.
  I am convinced that the decision at which the Committee arrived, in other words, not to accept the Amendment, is one which they will greatly regret, and one which they will give effect to this evening by accepting these Amendments. I am convinced that the Committee came to its conclusion in an atmosphere of lack of understanding of what was involved.
  I am sure that the Committee was under the impression that we were discussing machines of a hard gaming nature, whereas we were in fact discussing machines offering amusements with prizes which are limited in value and where there is no evidence of the kind of intimidation which was brought to light so nobly by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) and which resulted in a great deal of publicity in the national Press—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered.
  That the Proceedings on the Gaming Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Ross.]
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Sir S. McAdden: I am very unlucky. Even in Committee I was interrupted and had to continue my speech next day. However, it may be that that interruption will help us come to a clear and sensible decision on this matter.
  Whilst it is right to seek to prevent the excesses which occur in the operation of gaming machines and try to stamp out rackets of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, surely it is not suggested that racketeers are involved in machines providing amusements and prizes on licensed premises. Indeed, I asked the hon. Gentleman to give me some examples of where racketeering might have occurred, but even he, with his great experience, could not quote any.
  I felt that the hon. and learned Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill had been inadequately briefed on the subject, because he appeared to think that there was some possibility of brewers being intimidated by the retailers of these machines. I have no interest to declare, and I am not here on behalf of the brewers, but I find it difficult to imagine the brewers being intimidated by racketeers. These operations are well conducted. In most cases there is a profit-sharing arrangement between the brewer, the licensee and the retailer of the machine. It is an arrangement which works satisfactorily, and there is no evidence of racketeering. The brewers, the licensees and the retailers of the machines like it. It works very well, and I hope that consideration will be given by the Government to allowing the existing state of affairs to continue.
  No one denies that the accounts are kept meticulously, and the division of what I may call the spoils is exceptionally fair as between the interested parties. It is an arrangement which enables some of our country public houses to have machines offering amusements with prizes which would not be possible if it were not for the existing sharing arrangements, because they cover a large number of public houses some of which will be more profitable than others. By taking the rough with the smooth, all are able to enjoy the benefits of the machines,
  166
  which do not ruin the country or cause great vice and corruption.
  I am sure that the Committee's decision was due to a misunderstanding. From time to time Parliament makes mistakes. If we have made a mistake in this case, why should we not admit it and put it right now by saying that the operation of these machines is not a vicious form of gambling and does not cause public scandal? After all, if it is permissible on seaside piers and in amusement arcades, why should it not be in public houses?
  For those reasons and in the hope that on this occasion my humble proposal will be accepted by the House, I resume my seat with a spirit of optimism. I hope to hear some cheerful words from the Under-Secretary of State.
  Mr. Buck: At the moment, we are dealing with the group of Amendments associated with Amendment No. 24. As I understand it, they put the position of the travelling showmen and members of the Showmen's Guild on the same basis as members of the Amusement Caterers' Association. We raised the point in Committee, and we were assured that the matter would be looked at because there was some doubt about it. We are glad to see that it is now to be put to rights. Now the same concessions which had been made earlier to amusement operators operating from a static position are extended to travelling fair men and fair operators. We are glad of that and in due course hope to have similar sympathetic treatment on other Amendments relating to similar topics.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The Committee went gloriously astray on this matter. It is plain that it was not understood. I have been closely concerned on many occasions with the presentation of the arguments which are necessary in this sphere. I have no interest to declare, save that in another place I had to present the case for the best known company operating in this sphere and also originally to look at the position about amusements with prizes contrasted with gaming machines.
  It is essential to understand the background. For the last 25 to 30 years in areas of my constituency, such as Dreamland, there has always been a clear distinction between gaming machines or one-armed bandits in the proper sense and

  167
  amusements with prizes. The two are in no way connected and it is important to realise the difference. A one-armed bandit may give a jack-pot with a substantial money prize. It is properly subject to control and only two such machines are permitted in clubs. In this Bill a one-armed bandit is subject to rigorous control and licence.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It would appear that the hon. Member is addressing himself to Amendment No. 142, which is not selected.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: No, Mr. Speaker. I am addressing myself to the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and myself, which is,
  "upon licensed premises in respect of which a permit is granted pursuant to Section 49(1) of the Act of 1963 (Provision of amusements with prizes at certain commercial entertainments)."
  We would like that added as one of the exceptions. I should have made it plain at the outset that I was speaking to that.
  I am all for adding travelling showmen. I am seeking to argue that in the case of amusements with prizes one should be permitted to have them on a fairground or on a pier, in the case of travelling showmen, and also that one should have them in licensed premises provided they are not gaming machines but are properly amusements with prizes. Of all the arguments I would address to the House, I am convinced that this is absolutely unanswerable when one really understands the position.
  When the 1960 and the 1963 Acts were passed certainly the Home Office did not think that people in public houses would be able to get permits for what they thought were one-armed bandits. The Committee at the time did not recognise that it would be possible to invent a disc-operated machine for use in a public house. What happened was that the operators went to counsel in this country and sought advice. As a result of that advice, it was pointed out to the publican, and thus to the brewer, that he could apply for a permit for a machine in his public house provided it returned to the operator a prize not exceeding 5s. and a machine was specifically devised which led to applications for permits in public
  168
  houses so that people could engage in this harmless game.
  I say "game" because it is just the same as the one on a pier except that it is in public. It is identical. Nobody can suggest that this is gaming. When the application goes before the local authority, and on appeal before the committee— and many have gone on appeal before the committee—the overwhelming arguments of the recorders of this country, which can all be seen on the files of the Home Office—and they include Baptists in the West Country, Roman Catholics in the East of England and good solid church-going folk up and down the country— have been that it is perfectly proper. They have all passed them as amusements with prizes, after very rigorous and proper control.
  That being so, the publicans entered into contracts and the really impossible feature of the Bill as it stands at the moment is that if it is carried into effect in its present form it will have a very serious retrospective operation. Let me give just one example. Three of the leading brewers in this country have obtained permits, one in the case of 350 public houses, another in the case of 175 public houses, and a third for an almost equivalent number. Those permits have been granted, this year in some cases, last year in others, for three years. They have, therefore, an existing permit for some three years to enable them to have these amusements with prizes. Once a brewer has obtained a permit he is no longer engaged in running the machines and the brewers have entered into profit-sharing contracts with the well-known companies which supply these machines; and the brewers are bound to that contract to continue for the period of their permit, that is, for at least another two and a half years. They are bound by a contract to take these machines from the supplier into their public house in pursuance of their permit and on terms agreed.
  If this alteration in the law is made it will cause acute hardship on the suppliers or the publican, or both, because we are changing the law in the middle of an existing situation. I know that this has not been seen. If it had been seen and appreciated by the Home Secretary he would, I am sure, have recognised that there was here a very serious

  169
  fault that needed looking at. Furthermore, I believe there have been one or two—dare I say?—somewhat wayward suggestions from the bench who also did not understand the difference between an amusement with prizes and a gaming machine. I am not suggesting everybody should understand the difference straight away. I; one sees one of these monstrosities with its long name and its big handle to be pulled, one might well think that one machine is the same as another. But there have always been, in our law and in our practice, a very real difference. The only reason why the public house machine looks like the other machine is because they wanted the machines to look alike so that people in public houses might be encouraged so to use it. That is the only reason.
  If the Government are willing to permit even children to go into a fairground or to a travelling showman's fair around the country in which these machines are in operation, how can it be contended that it is wrong to have them in a public house? Why should we change the law from a position which is perfectly satisfactory for most circumstances? Permits which have been granted by local authorities under Section 49(1) of the Act of 1963 for amusements with prizes at those entertainments have been perfectly properly given. Are we now to say that Parliament having given this authority and this power and having permitted all these people to make their arrangements for the next three years on the reliance of the word of Parliament, Parliament now turns round and says, "We are terribly sorry. We are changing the law and we are going to do this."?
  10.15 p.m.
  The Minister may well have been given some food for thought by what I have said, and by what my hon. Friend said. What my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said in Committee was true, but nobody seemed to grasp the significance of it. We do not propose to divide the House on this issue, but it is a matter which I hope the Government will consider carefully in another place, because an injustice is being done to those who have entered into contracts, and I can give the Minister any information that he wants on that. I can give him the names of the breweries, the companies, and the
  170
  contracts to show that they are binding for years.
  I ask that careful consideration be given to what has been said, and that we continue the principle enshrined in the 1963 Act of drawing a clear distinction between a gaming machine, which has to be the subject of rigorous control, and a machine which happens to be an apparatus which does nothing more than provide idle and reasonable pleasure at very small cost.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Amendment is technically defective in that Section 49(1) of the 1963 Act, which is amended by Schedule 11, applies only to amusements with prizes in which machines are not used, whereas the Amendment is concerned exclusively with machines whose supply and use are now to be governed wholly by Part III of the Bill.
  The object of the Amendment is to get rid of the ban on amusement machines on licensed premises. The objections to profit-sharing arrangements are that they give retailers a continuing interest in the amount of use made of the machine, a claim to be on the premises to see how they are being used, and a right to check the accounts and earnings. They thus accentuate the pressures which unscrupulous retailers can bring to bear on their customers.
  That apart, when dealing with relatively inexperienced customers the percentages can well be fixed in such a way as to leave the suppliers with an undue advantage.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman may be reading from a brief, but does he really believe that brief when it says that the licensed trade will be fooled by these operators? These are all professional licensees, and in the majority of cases they are great chain establishments with the finest advice that money can buy.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am not naive enough to believe that this situation is not open to abuse. There is a precedent in the law of mortgages for the law to intercede between a brewery or substantial interests and the owner of licensed premises. There is, therefore, a precedent for saying that the law looks with especial favour upon protecting the

  171
  publican. There is also a danger for inexperienced customers of percentages being fixed unfairly so as to leave the suppliers with an unconscionably substantial profit. The system tends to the detriment of the occupiers, who were supposed to be the chief beneficiaries of these machines; they are merely so many commercial outlets for the retailers and relegated to the position of junior partners.
  These objections have long been recognised. Section 54 (2) of the 1963 Act already bans profit-sharing in the supply of gaming machines and Clause 27(2) of the Bill now extends the ban to amusement machines. I note the point about the possibly retrospective effect of the Clause and give an assurance that this will be examined in detail. I merely throw out the consideration that the law of frustration could apply to such a situation, but I should like time to consider all the ramifications.
  I plead that the use of these amusement machines has proliferated since 1960 as it was never expected to do when the permit system was introduced in that year. They are often identical in design with gaming machines, being the familiar one-armed bandits. I believe that, mechanically, it is impossible to distinguish between the two, and that the only one is the monetary distinction, the limit set by Statute. They offer the same temptations to methods of pressure and extortion as do gaming machines, and the more closely the supply of the latter is regulated, the more one may expect more unscrupulous retailers to turn their attention to this other market—
  Sir S. McAdden: I have asked several times for any evidence of undue pressure being put on anyone. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of notice of this and has not given one single example to justify this claim.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I do not pretend that I have this evidence to hand. In a relationship such as exists between a publican and the brewers and retailers, few
  172
  people may be anxious to air their complaints publicly. But often, the same people are responsible for the manufacture of amusement machines and gaming machines. Many of those retailers have unimpeachable characters; some have not. Abuses have appeared and are well known in relation to gaming machines and there is, therefore, no reason why those abuses should not in time appear in relation to amusement machines—
  Mr. Rees-Davies: There is every reason. They are harmless. No money can be made. To get a permit under Section 49, demand has to be established and that demand comes from the public. The publican would then go to his brewer, who would then make his contract. These are amusements. They are not gaming machines and will not give any volume of money to anyone. They are not even like bingo—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief. We are on Report, not in Committee.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: It is no part of my case to say that this can constitute as lucrative a prospect for the retailer as gaming machines, but once that avenue has been closed it is possible, likely and virtually certain that the attention of would-be racketeers would turn to amusement machines. Therefore, while it is true that the restriction may at this stage be considered precautionary, we would be foolish, in view of the evidence of racketeering in the supply of these machines, if we were to neglect that precaution.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 25, in page 20, line 11, after 'machine' insert:
  'for use exclusively at a travelling showmen's pleasure fair or'.
  No. 26, in line 14, after 'machine', insert:
  'at any such pleasure fair or'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 30

  USE OF MACHINES BY VIRTUE OF LICENCE OR REGISTRATION
  Mr. Bock: I beg to move Amendment No. 152, in page 21, line 1, after 'machines', insert:
  'or such greater number (if any) as may be specified by an order made on the advice of the Board by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection'.
  We now come specifically to consider machines known as one-armed bandits. The House should be aware of what the Bill does at present relative to these machines, because there is one aspect of the Bill's; treatment of these extraordinary machines about which one cannot be entirely happy. If two of these machines, as laid down by Statute, are on the premises of proprietary clubs, the profits emanating from them must go to charity. This position is eliminated by the Bill and I am not entirely happy about that.
  The Amendment is similar in character to Amendments tabled in Committee. It seems to my hon. Friends and I that there is no logical reason why the number of one-armed bandits, or fruit machines as they are otherwise called, should be two on any club premises. Why, in logicality, should there be two? We have not been told why or how this number was arrived at.
  It seems absurd that there should be two machines in a club catering for thousands of people while in a miniscule club in which one can hardly get in there should be two machines also. We propose that the number should remain at two for the time being but that, on the recommendation of the Gaming Board, a different number could by order be substituted. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) wondered whether it was appropriate to clutter up the Board with matters of this kind. He hoped that a more appropriate way would be found to add flexibility in this respect. As usual, there was considerable substance in my right hon. Friend's argument, but, since no other way of introducing this flexibility has been found, I am thrown back on this Amendment. It would make greater sense than continuing the entirely arbitrary position which enables clubs, great and small, to have each just two gaming machines.
  174
  I hope that the Under-Secrelary and his colleagues have given extra thought to this matter since Committee, and that now we shall have either acceptance of the Amendment or an indication that in another place the position will be dealt with by providing greater flexibility.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: Gaming machines, because of the large jackpots they offer, and the rapidity of turnover, represent, in my estimation, unequalled chances of gaming in its most addictive form. For that reason, the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which sat between 1949 and 1952, recommended that they should be prohibited absolutely.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has asked why the number was fixed at two. The Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, departed from the Commission's recommendation, because there was thought to be little harm in allowing clubs—that is, genuine members' clubs—to make a modest profit from the use of these machines, and, therefore, it allowed up to two machines to be installed on premises to which the public had no access. The provision was perpetuated by Section 33 of the 1963 Act, and is now being confirmed, in respect of licensed or registered or specially registered clubs, by Clause 30(2) of the Bill.
  In practice, these machines have proved to be every bit as addictive as the Royal Commission supposed they would be, and, consequently, a great deal more profitable than those who framed the 1960 Act ever expected. A great mass of vested interest has built up behind their supply and use, and their commercial and gaming use has so developed as to make the controls in Part III of the Bill imperative. As for the permitted number of machines, it is, the Government realise, too late to turn the clock back, but an ordinary club should be well content with the profits which two machines can bring it. In many cases, it is appreciated that those profits already subsidise a large part of a club's activities. There seems to be no need to increase further their number, and to make this market still larger.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 43, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 13 on page 22 and to insert:
  'at any time when the public have access to the premises, whether on payment or otherwise '.
  Clause 30(8), as it stands, provides that gaming machines, on the premises of a licensed club or institute registered in respect of the premises under Parts II or III of the Bill, shall be used only by members of the club or institute or their bona fide guests. This Amendment substitutes the requirement that they shall not be used at any time when the public have access to the premises. The chief significance of this Amendment is that it would allow machines in, for instance, a working men's club, or Conservative club, to be used by associate members who are not or may not be bona fide guests of one of the club's members, but, from their associate status, are not members of the public, either. Also, it would allow machines in golf clubs to be used by visiting competitors.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32

  USE OF MACHINES AT NON-COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENTS
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 22, line 30, leave out ' the following entertainments ' and insert:
  'any entertainment which takes place elsewhere than on premises in respect of which—

  (a) a licence under this Act is for the time being in force, or

  (b) a club or a miners' welfare institute is for the time being registered under Part II or under this Part of this Act,

  and which is an entertainment of any of the following kinds'.
  I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider with it Government Amendment No. 116.
  The object of the Amendments is to prohibit "amusements with prizes" in the form of machines or fairground games being provided as "incidents" to non-commercial entertainments such as fetes, dances, dinners or bazaars, in any
  176
  club or institute licensed or registered under Part II.
  The provisions allowing amusements to be provided as "incidents" to entertainments promoted otherwise than for private gain are at present contained in Section 48 of the 1963 Act, but are separated by the Bill, so that the use of machines is dealt with under Clause 33, but the provision of games is left to be governed by the 1963 Act, subject to certain amendments in Schedule 11. In either case, however, the existing provisions are perpetuated in their substance. They are extremely liberal. Provided the amusements are no more than "incidents", and the objects of the entertainments are noncommercial, all the normal restrictions on stakes, prizes and so on are lifted. There is no limit to the number of machines that may be used, and no permit or other authority has to be obtained from anyone. Moreover, the entertainments are open to the general public, as follows from their very nature.
  It is evident in these circumstances that to allow such entertainments to be promoted on licensed or registered premises, with the public freely admitted, would provide endless opportunities to evade the restrictions imposed by of under the provisions of Part II. Dinners or dances might be held almost nightly, It would be difficult in the case of a licensed club to prove that the profits were in fact being wholly devoted to non-commercial uses, and a registered club or institute could lawfully appropriate them to its own purposes, that is, to the general benefit of its members, since this would not constitute private gain or profit. Obviously, this loophole needs to be closed, and the Amendments do it. If a club of either kind, or a miners' welfare institute, genuinely wishes to make a special contribution to charity or some other deserving purpose, there is nothing to prevent it from devoting to this the profits or receipts from an evening's gaming under the normal conditions of licence or registration, or setting aside a part of the normal take from its gaming machines.
  Mr. Buck: The Amendment puzzled me until I had a word with some of those who advise the Minister and I did a little more homework on it. It seems

  177
  to me that the nub of it is that no charitable functions such as fetes and bazaars can take place on registered club premises; if the registered clubs are to be able to use their machines they cannot do so when the public are there.
  At first blush it would seem entirely desirabb that from time to time registered clubs should, from the goodness of their hearts, allow their premises and facilities to be used for charitable purposes. I am a little surprised that it has been found necessary to make the Amendments, but I can see their point and therefore do not intend to delay the House for very long. One can see the very great complications that there would be over enforcement if such functions were allowed on registered premises, and that is probably the basic reason behind the Amendments. There would then be considerable difficulties in enforcement, which is one of the keys to the Bill. One is reluctant to see the House discard any Amendment which makes a substantial contribution to the ease and simplicity of enforcement. On balance, I take the view that, narrowly, these Amendments, which eliminate the public even for charitable purposes from going on to registered club premises and enjoying facilities there, are desirable.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33

  OTHER USES OF MACHINES FOR AMUSEMENT PURPOSES
  Amendment made: No. 28, in page 24, line 10, leave out from 'a' to 'pleasure' in line 14 and insert 'travelling showmen's'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
  Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 87, in page 24, line 20, to leave out from second 'receive' to 'any' in line 21.
  There is a formidable group of Government Amendments down to this Clause which perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to consider with No. 87. They are: Nos. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I suggest that we could also discuss two Amendments standing in my name. They are No. 129, in page 24, line 25, leave out 'five' and
  178
  insert 'ten', and No. 130, in line 32, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is for the convenience of the House, so be it.
  Mr. Callaghan: The purposs of the Government Amendment is to recast the endings of subsections (3) and (4). The Clause as drafted stipulates the prizes in money or in kind or combinations of both which can be given by machines when used for amusement purposes. The Amendments represent no change in intention. They are designed to clarify the drafting. At the same time, they correct two defects.
  First, the general principle of these amusement machines is to allow prizes in money or in kind within prescribed limits to be delivered either directly by the machine itself or obtained in exchange for tokens delivered by the machine. Subsection (3)(d) as it stands provides for delivery by the machine of a combined prize consisting of up to 2s. in money and an article up to the value of 5s., less the amount of the money prize. But nowhere does it provide for the delivery of a token exchangeable for a combined prize within these limits. The Amendment rectifies that omission.
  Now for an even more important point. Subsection (4) allows for the machine which gives a winner some money back plus another go. The form of words in the Bill as drafted gives rise to doubts about the case of a machine which gives another go, and then another, and then another, and then another which the player may be winning.
  Mr. Hogg: Let's go with Labour.
  Mr. Callaghan: Yes, and one always wins a prize. The whole point of going with Labour is that one constantly wins.
  We are recasting the wording to provide that this is permissible, provided that the 2s. maximum is not exceeded. I hope the House will agree that these Amendments will make the intention clearer.
  Amendments No. 129 and 130 would increase from 5s. to 10s. the maximum prizes in value to be won in a single go or used as the component of the calculation where prizes are given partly in money and partly in kind. The 1960 Act proposed a limit of 1s. on prizes in cash.

  179
  The 1964 Act put a limit on prizes in kind of 5s. Clause 33 raises the limit on cash prizes to 2s. besides allowing a combined prize—a great novelty, this —up to the value of 5s., of which 2s. may be in money.
  These machines are intended to be used for amusement purposes and not for gaming in any serious sense. For that reason they, unlike gaming machines proper, are allowed to be installed in places open to the public.
  10.45 p.m.
  Even allowing for the fall in the value of money since 1960, this would be stretching the conception of amusement a little. While Clause 30(8) gives me power to vary the stipulated limits by order, I think it would be some time before I should wish to do so. I know that there are some interests among machine manufacturers and retailers, as well as customers, who would want these machines converted into gaming machines with the advantage of unrestricted public access and the Amendment would be a step in that direction, but on the other hand other manufacturers do not believe that it is necessary in any way to increase the amount from 5s. to 10s. I have had consultations about this and, although I see the point of the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet, I could not ask the House to accept it.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: With devaluation the prize is now paltry—one cannot even get 20 cigarettes with it. The interests which are against the proposal like to give paltry prizes, but others want to give the public something worth while.
  Mr. Callaghan: These machines are for amusement. They have no restrictions imposed on them. Some of them are designed as one-arm bandits. Without giving any assurance, I rest on the fact that subsection (8) gives me power if the prizes seem paltry even for amusement purposes, to look at the question again.
  Mr. Buck: It was some time before one realised the importance of these complicated Amendments. Then one realised that there has been a complete restructuring of the whole of Clause 33. It would have been rather interesting
  180
  had the Bill gone through unamended, to see ingenious operators designing a machine able to deliver not only a teddy bear but also tokens and money. It is obvious, since these prizes can be collected over the counter, that there would be an absurd situation under the Clause as originally structured. It is much better now it has been completely revised. We are glad that the anomaly has been cleared up.
  As opposed to the earlier Amendment, where there is a strict limitation of two gaming machines in a club there is flexibility as to the amount that can be given in prizes. Perhaps 5s. is all right as a starting point, although if the value of money continues to go down, the Home Secretary will have to make an order very quickly to increase the amount.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 88, in line 23, at end insert:
  'or a token exchangeable only for such a money prize'.
  No. 89, in line 25, at end insert:
  'or a token exchangeable only for such a non-monetary prize or such non-monetary prizes'.
  No. 90, to leave out lines 26 to 29.
  No. 91, in line 32, at end insert:
  'or a token exchangeable only for such a combination of a money prize and a non-monetary prize'.
  No. 92, in line 32, at end insert:
  (d) one or more tokens which can be used for playing one or more further games by means of the machine and, in so far as they are not so used, can be exchanged for a non-monetary prize or non-monetary prizes at the appropriate rate.
  No. 93, in line 34, leave out from 'that' to end of line 41 and insert:
  'a player, after inserting in the machine an amount permitted in accordance with subsection (2) of this section and playing a game successfully, is afforded by the automatic action of the machine an opportunity to play one or more further games without inserting any further coin or token in the machine, if in respect of all those games—

  (a) he does not receive, and is not entitled to receive, any article other than a money prize or money prizes of an amount or aggregate amount not exceeding two shillings, and

  (b) he does not receive, and is not entitled to receive, any other benefit or advantage apart from the opportunity to play those games'.

  No. 102, in line 42, leave out from 'of to 'the' in line 43 and insert:
  'a travelling showmen's pleasure fair '.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 113, in page 25, line 6, at end insert:
  (7) No permit for the purposes of this section shall be granted in respect of any premises where a licence under this Act is for the time being in force in respect of them or where a club or a miners' welfare institute is for the time being registered in respect of them under Part II of this Act; and, where such a licence is granted or a club or a miners' welfare institute is so registered in respect of any premises, and a permit granted for the purposes of this section is then in force in respect of those premises, the permit shall thereupon cease to have effect.
  I understand that it is intended to take with this Amendment No. 115.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House pleases, so be it.
  Mr. Morgan: The Amendment, on which the second is consequential, prohibits permits being granted under Clause 33 for the use of machines for "amusements with prizes", either to a licensed club or to a registered club or miners' welfare institute, and annuls any existing permits where premises become so licensed or registered.
  Licensed and registered clubs or institutes are each entitled under Clause 33 to the use of two gaming machines with large or unlimited prizes. Under Clause 31, a licensed club may forgo this right in exchange for the use of any larger number of amusement machines with limited prizes as the licensing authority may allow, this arrangement being in substitution for any right which the club might otherwise be considered to have to apply to the local authority for a permit for such machines under Clause 33. Accordingly, the machine permit system is only appropriate in the case of premises to which Part II of the Bill does not apply.
  The considerations in the case of the registered clubs and institutes are different. Whereas a licensed club, and a bingo club in particular, may be prepared to forgo its gaming machines so as to allow more, if less profitable machines to be available for the use of its members during intervals of the bingo sessions, and prevent the disorderly
  182
  crowding which often occurs, it is most unlikely that any members' club or institute would willingly make such an exchange, from which it could be expected to lose money. The issues here is whether they should be allowed amusement machines on permit in addition to their two gaming machines. This the Amendment prevents. The gaming machines are a considerable financial privilege in themselves, and it is one of the objects of Part III of the Bill to prevent the further proliferation of machines of any type by giving rights of use which do not exist at present.
  Mr. Buck: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. However, I do not see why a registered club should not have amusemenets with prizes in substitution, perhaps, for the two gaming machines which it is allowed at the moment. On the other hand, I cannot see that there is any strong argument in favour of such a club being alowed to have them. It appears that the registered clubs have not made any strong representations on the matter. If they have, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us.
  Mr. Morgan: I am not aware of any such representations, but that does not mean that some were not sent to my predecessor. However, I doubt very much whether any were made.
  Mr. Buck: I think that we may take it that any representations would have come to the attention of hon. Members on this side of the House had there been any strong feelings about the matter.
  Personally, I feel extreme indifference for the Amendment, and I shall not labour the House further with my indifference.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 94, in page 25, line 11, leave out '(3)(c)' and insert ' (3))(d)'.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 35
  REMOVAL OF MONEY FROM MACHINES
  Amendment made: No. 103, in page 26, line 6, after ' II', insert ' or under this Part '.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]
Clause 38

  PENALTIES UNDER PART III
  Amendment made: No. 127, in page 30, line 6, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert:
  (4) An order under subsection (3) of thissection made by a court in England or Wales—

  (a) shall not take effect until the end of the period within which the person on whose conviction the order was made can appeal against the conviction or against the making of the order, and

  (b) if he so appeals, shall not take effect until the appeal has been determined or abandoned.

  (5) The holder of a permit in respect of which an order under subsection (3) of this section is made by a court in Scotland may, without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law, appeal against the order in the same manner as against a conviction, and a permit shall not be cancelled under an order so made—

  (a) until the end of the period of fourteen days commencing with the date on which the order was made, nor

  (b) if an appeal against the order or the conviction which gave rise thereto is taken within the said period, until the date when that appeal is determined or abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

Clause 39

  SPECIAL CHARGES FOR PLAY AT CERTAIN CLUBS AND INSTITUTES
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 30, leave out lines 39 to 41.
  The Clause makes a special concession for members' clubs and institutes whereby they are allowed, without having to register under Part II of the Bill, to charge sums not exceeding 6d. per person per day to players of equal chance games such as bingo. This Amendment omits the condition in subsection (2) which confines the charges to members of the club or institute concerned and their bona fide guests, but, since the Clause is not excluded from the scope of Part I of the Bill, the concession remains subject to the provisions of Clause 5(l)(a) which forbid gaming in any place to which the public have access.
  The effect of the Amendment, therefore, is simply to widen the permissible scope of the charges for premises which
  184
  are not registered under Part II to include associate members of a club, visitors and so on. The considerations here are the same as those prompting an earlier Amendment to Clause 30. If the premises are registered under Part II the ordinary provisions of Clause 12 in regard to who may participate will continue to apply.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: This is an important Clause which was hardly discussed in Committee. It deals with the genuine members' club. It does not deal with bingo or anything of the sort. It is concerned with the sort of clubs of which we are members; with "normal" men's clubs which are not registered for gaming but where table money is charged for bridge and similar games.
  Mr. Morgan: I mentioned bingo only as being illustrative of a type of equal chance gaming which could take place on those premises.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, but that is irrelevant because it never does take place. My hon. Friends and I are not concerned with that aspect so much as with what happens in the Carlton, the Junior Carlton, Brooks's and similar clubs in London and elsewhere. There will be strong resentment if they cannot make their usual table charges, which are not in 6d.s, a derisory amount. These clubs should be entitled to lay down the table charges which they consider to be fair and reasonable. A fixed charge of 6d. is not sufficient because each club wishes to fix its own charge.
  Throughout the country bridge clubs charge from 1s. to 4s. table money, depending on the club. The same applies for poker and any of the other normal games played in members' clubs. Hon. Members will recall what happened some years ago when the police were given the right to enter clubs. There was a terrible row about that, and I recall the then Lord Chancellor making efforts to exclude a certain proprietary club. I can see an enormous row arising as a result of this provision if an ordinary member's club which for years has not been interfered with suddenly finds that it cannot charge ordinary table money.
  I trust that this matter will be carefully examined, with the result that these clubs will be entitled to charge what they regard as reasonable table money for the amenities they provide. Do not let us

  185
  have the answer that this is not a clear definition. It is perfectly clear that table money is for the amenities offered. There has been no difficulty about it. I hope that another place will be more interested in it than here and will take it up if we do not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 147, in page 31, line 4, leave out ' (if any)'.
  I am not sure what has happened, because I understand that in Committee a similar Amendment was accepted by the Government. However, for some unknown reason in the Bill as printed and amended the words "if any" still remain. Therefore, this Amendment was put down again to correct what I think must have been a mistake, since clearly an Amendment in identical terms was accepted in Committee.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am not certain about the genealogy of this drafting Amendment or the reasons for it, but I am delighted to say that the Government accept it. It amends Clause 39 in the same way that Clause 30(3) was amended in Committee. It is desirable that the two provisions should match.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40

  GAMING AT ENTERTAINMENTS NOT HELD FOR PRIVATE GAIN
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: I beg to move Amendment No. 114, in page 31, line 25, after ' not', insert:
  ' gaming to which Part II of this Act applies or'.
  This Amendment continues the process by which all gaming conducted on premises licensed or registered under Part II of the Bill is confined to the ambit of that Part. It removes the right of licensed and registered clubs or institutes to promote equal chance gaming for purposes other than private gain under the provisions of Clause 40.
  That Clause is designed in particular to allow entertainments such as charitable bridge and whist drives; but it would also allow a members' club to provide bingo —an equal chance game—in aid of the club funds, a purpose other than private
  186
  gain. There is nothing that the Clause permits in the way of the games that may be played, or the charges that may be made and the prizes that may be offered—which are confined to very moderate sums—that are not also likely to be permitted under the normal conditions of licence or registration. The essential difference is that under Clause 40 the public may be admitted, so that the provision might be invoked by the clubs to evade the restrictions on participation in gaming on licensed or registered premises contained in Clause 12. The Amendment is, therefore, introduced primarily in the interests of enforcement, and it involves little deprivation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 32, line 30, at end insert:
  (9) In relation to entertainments held pursuant to this section application may be made to the licensing authority to grant a special certificate of exemption from the provisions of this section and the licensing authority may permit such entertainment (promoted for purposes other than private gain) upon such terms and conditions as they shall set out in writing.
  In determining the merits of the application the Board shall pay due regard to the benefit which may accrue to charity or other benefits arising by reason of the grant.
  There is one mistake in the Amendment. It should not be
  "… the Board shall pay due regard ",
  but
  "… the licensing authority shall pay due regard to the benefit which may accrue to charity or other benefits arising by reason of the grant."
  This is an important matter, because the present provision of Clause 40 is absolutely fatuous. One may be trying to raise money for a new kidney unit for somebody suffering from a kidney disease, for the Empire Cancer Research Fund, for polio victims or other cases of that kind and may want to give a substantial charitable entertainment right across the board in one of the leading hotels, providing, for example, a first-class dinner and dance, with a large tombola upstairs and, incidental and pursuant to it, some game, and possibly a separate gaming room.
  Under the Clause as it stands—and this I feel is a sobering fact—all one can give, in respect of all games played at

  187
  the entertainment which constitutes gaming is one payment by a player which must not exceed 10s.; and the totality of the prizes for those games under subsection (4) shall not exceed £50. The average tombola first prize in a first-class charitable entertainment is £750, and it is quite common to find that £2,000 or £2,500 is given to charity at the end of an evening at one of the leading hotels as a result of a charitable entertainment.
  I urge the Home Secretary to find some way in which this can be done, with proper safeguards—and this is one. I do not necessarily suggest it is the best one. I would have preferred to have amended the whole of the Clause, but it seemed that the best course was to provide for a special application to be made. There is a clear precedent for this in the special occasions which we have in the Licensing Act provisions. I would draw an analogy between this and occasions when there may be a wedding or a particular Rotary Club feast and one is able to go to the local justices and apply to be permitted to drink into the early hours.
  I specifically set down that the terms and conditions should be set out in writing so that there could be no question of abuse. When an order is made by the justices they would say that games may be operated. As in other parts of the Act, a precisely similar provision is being imposed on the justices to consider whether additional games may be played. It is not imposing any undue burden on them. Obviously, charities will make applications of this kind only for fairly substantial affairs, in the main in the metropolis, and in certain major cities throughout the country where there is some substantial charitable entertainment.
  One of the ways in which nowadays one can get a lot of money for a really worthwhile charity is by giving a function at which there can be substantial lotteries and also an evening of gaming. A person may be willing to lose money at gaming during an evening of this kind knowing that it is for charity. This is particularly true of Jewish charities. Jews are particularly generous, as one knows, to many functions—to their own and other charities. I have seen Jews sit down and lose hundreds of pounds for the sake of charity. They will win
  188
  the prize and give it back to be put up again.
  I want to ensure that we do not inhibit all this in the creeping paralysis which comes into certain corners of this Bill, and that we take a robust view. It is no good saying there can be abuse, for there can be abuses of everything. But people who promote these large scale entertainments are usually people of some position in public life. They usually employ a professional secretary. They have to do so in order to operate large fetes, bazaars and entertainments for charities. I hope we can take a generous attitude towards those who are doing this for the sake of charity.
  Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Amendment relates to gambling and entertainment promoted otherwise than for private gain, and allows changes to be made or levies to be made on stakes. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has very much minimised or toned down the difficulties of deciding when licences should be granted, and indeed generally enforcing such provisions. It is necessary that a concession of this kind, of which anyone may take advantage without having to submit to licensing or registration, should be closely fenced round to prevent excesses and abuses developing which could be seriously prejudicial to the whole of the control system.
  We could not willingly entrust powers of variation to licensing justices all over the country, nor, on the other hand, is the detailed scrutiny of individual applications, which are likely to be anomalous and petty, a proper responsibility to put on the Gaming Board which will have a great deal else to do without this sort of distraction. But wherever the responsibility might be placed, it would be an impossibly invidious one to discharge.
  I submit that judgment of the relevant merits of charities and other causes can only be subjective, and the inevitable result would be that concessions made in one case would be found impossible to refuse in others, so that the whole system would snowball and be in danger of getting completely out of hand. This in itself would be bad enough, even if the scope for variation were confined to charges and prizes. If it were extended to allow games of unequal chance to be played, it could become very dangerous indeed.

  189
  The limits on charges and prizes set out in the Clause are extremely generous. In particular, we have increased the prize limit by as much as 150 per cent. on the present level. In doing so we have stretched the concept of an entertainment, which is what these activities are supposed to be, to its ultimate. With any further extension the activities could not be regarded as anything but gaming, and we have not yet accepted the principle that charities should be subsidised by gaming in the serious meaning of that term.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely Parliament has accepted that principle. We have said that there can be lotteries for purposes other than private gain, and there are special Acts of Parliament in that connection. The only question which we have to discuss is quantum. The principle that there can be lotteries and gaming for charity has been established. The amount of money is a matter of degree. The only question here is whether magistrates will be permitted to decide the amount and the terms of the quantum which will be laid down.
  Mr. Morgan: I accept that, but the degree can be so regulated as to change the very substance of society's outlook on this matter. At the moment charities are subsidised by minor gaming, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the provisions of Section 48 of the 1963 Act. We do not pretend that we or anybody else can fairly distinguish between one disinterested object and another, and we believe that the same opportunities—neither more nor less— should be open to all charities. For that reason I invite the House to reject the Amendment.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Carlisle: The Clause is designed to give exemptions to charitable functions and would permit gaming which was otherwise limited by Part II if it were an entertainment. The Under-Secretary's answer, therefore, is wholly inadequate. We are concerned only with the quantum. What can possibly be the objection to a charity making substantial sums for a worthy cause, and the reason for limiting it in the way proposed?
  Mr. Morgan: Although a charity is mentioned, it is only one of presumably
  190
  innumerable factors which the licensing authorities would be enabled to consider.
  Mr. Carlisle: I accept that, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Amendment is not particularly well drafted. If the principle were accepted, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be willing to withdraw it on the assurance that it would be reconsidered in another place.
  This is the same gaming which Part I permits, if done privately. So we are saying that gaming in a private house is all right but not gaming to which Part II applies, for stakes above 10s., if it is done in a public place, although part of an entertainment to benefit a charity. Since it will cover such things as roulette to benefit a charity, I regret that the Government cannot accept the principle of the Amendment, which would allow the licensing authority to consider all the facts, which might lead it to increase the amounts allowed to be staked and won.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Could we have a reply on this? I meant to Limit the Amendment to what the justices determined to be a charitable entertainment. If it goes wider, would the Government consider limiting it in another place to such entertainment as the justices considered suitable? That would meet the point of me and my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Morgan: With the leave of the House. I am willing to consider this, but I issue this warning to the hon. Gentleman, lest he be disappointed. His arguments would be valid, were it not for the provisions of Section 48 of the 1963 Act, which gives everything for which he could ask in the case of charitable dinners, drives and dances. This Clause is directed at something quite different from the weekly church whist drive.
  Mr. Hogg: But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a broad view. We all know that, in the great urban centres, and particularly the metropolis, there are large national charities which, for reasons good or bad, raise substantial sums by entertainment of this kind, which may not be limited to dances or gaming. It might include gaming, but if one looks at the broad purpose of this Bill, we are seen to be dealing—as the

  191
  Home Secretary has more than once reminded us—with a considerable social evil. There has been extortion and even, again as the Home Secretary has said, murder. But that is because commercial interests have got out of hand; and they have got out of hand because of the defective state of the law.
  However, it is wholly outwith, wholly outside, the province of commercial activities that we are talking now. We are, of course, concerned with the morality of gaming for purposes of charity, but we should not take too puritanical a view. Great national causes can be served by sums of money where £50 is offered as a prize, or ten shillings is charged for admission; but those amounts may now be wholly inadequate. Sums which to our forefathers seemed to be very large are not necessarily very large to us. Will the whole of our society be subverted by giving a more favourable reception to an Amendment of this sort than has been given by the Government's spokesman?
  One does not want to die in the last ditch for figures of this kind, but is it not rational to believe that a more permissive attitude to this kind of thing is now justified in the realm of charitable or quasi-charitable activities? Then one could ask if the right hon. Gentleman has not been too submissive to the licensing justices. They are very wise in their own generation and my opinion of them—for what it is worth, and that may not be much, although I have appeared before them in recent months—is that they are restrictive rather than permissive. Over a fairly long life I have found that they are restrictive in the granting of licences.
  Is it necessary to be so grudging in this matter? We shall not press this to a Division at this hour of the night, and if something like this Amendment could be pursued in another place, I would hope that the Government would approach the matter in a wholly receptive spirit. There is a great deal to be said for it. I hope that what I have said will be borne in mind should the matter be considered again elsewhere.
  Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an appeal which, with respect to him, has been answered by the Under-Secretary. Clause
  192
  40 is really intended to deal with, say, Church whist drives run as weekly events, and my advice is that the case which he has made, and which has been made before, is covered by Section 48 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963. That would give the organisers everything they could want in relation to this kind of entertainment or charity. [Interruption.] I am told that this is the case.
  I do not want to approach this in what hon. Members may think is a grudging spirit, but if it is covered by Section 48 of the 1963 Act, then there is no need for any of us to do anything about it. If it is not, then I will certainly look at his arguments.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The next Amendment selected is No. 154.
  Mr. Callaghan: Before we come to Amendment 154, I beg to move,
  That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
  It is nearly 11.30, which is the time I had in mind for adjourning. We have dealt with half the Clauses in terms of numbers and half the pages in terms of acreage. When I look at the work which we must do on the Bill tomorrow and remember that we will not start until 7 o'clock, and when I see that the overwhelming number of Amendments to be considered are Government Amendments designed to meet points which were raised in Committee, although some of them are not, I believe that, if we are sparing in our speeches in explaining those Amendments, we should be able to finish tomorrow night at a reasonable hour.
  Mr. Hogg: I thank the Home Secretary for his consideration for us in this matter. Ft is convenient that we should adjourn at this stage. We have made considerable progress and it is not our fault that we will not begin at 3.30 tomorrow afternoon, as we had all supposed, but at 7 o'clock. If the atmosphere which the right hon. Gentleman has engendered so far today is continued, as I hope it will be, we should be able to finish tomorrow night; and, in these circumstances, I support the Motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

  BRITISH NATIONALS (UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: On 21st December last, I initiated a debate based on complaints from members of the old Commonwealth about their restricted entry into the land of their fathers. During that debate, I pointed out that these people had the same cultural and educational backgrounds as ourselves and caused no difficulties from the point of view of the Welfare State or employment. I suggested that those who shared the same Crown and who took so many of our citizens into their countries should have special treatment on the basis of reciprocity, and this view was supported by several of my hon. Friends.
  In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—who will also reply to this debate—rejected this argument and said:
  "That is a point which I do not think has much validity."
  He later went on:
  "The argument which would be seen most widely in the world and in this country, however, is that somehow we had one rule for white and another for the coloured, one rule of the old Commonwealth and another for the new Commonwealth. I do not believe that that is what the House would wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1967, Vol. 756, c. 1532–5.]
  It is six months since that debate took place, and it is now clear that by preventing the entry of people who have no racial, cultural or family ties with this country we are imposing equal controls on those who originated in this country, who still have family ties here, who share our culture and who still regard Britain as home. As far as I know, no other country acts in this manner.
  Since the last debate I have naturally received many letters on the subject, and in the last six months certain events have further exacerbated public opinion. I will classify these under three heads. The first covers further complaints from Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders about their difficulties in getting into this country. Second, the
  194
  growing realisation that many Englishmen can now no longer return to their mother country. Third, the whole question of passports, which has been highlighted by the Government's inept handling of Sir Frederick Crawford.
  I should like to know from the Minister what discretion the Home Secretary has to administer the law as it stands, and I shall, therefore, quote certain cases under those three headings.
  First, the old Commonwealth citizens. In the Daily Express of 28th March this year there was an interview with an Australian sheep farmer, and I quote a remark of that gentleman, who said:
  "This is what really chokes us—all this fuss and bother to get into the Mother Country."
  The article goes on to say that many people in the old Commonwealth thought their education was not complete without a lengthy stay in this country. It says:
  "Since the introduction of the new Commonwealth Immigration Bill many Australians feel the traditional alliance is in danger of being strangled by bureaucratic red tape."
  I believe this view, expressed in this article, has been supported by a letter I received recently from an Australian clergyman, a gentleman whom I have never met and whose letter came out of the blue. He says:
  "I am an Australian clergyman married to an Ulsterwoman. I lived and worked here "—
  that is, in this country—
  " in the early 'fifties, and decided after 16 years back in Melbourne to bring my wife and family home to Britain in 1966."
  He goes on to say he had heard of our new regulations of control of Commonwealth immigrants, but that he had also heard that for clergymen and graduates of universities there were exemptions from the general ban. In this, of course, he was wrong. He goes on to say:
  "While my children would, although all born in Australia, travel to and enter Britain on their mother's passport, I would be allowed only to come in as a tourist and would be forced to leave at the expiration of the allotted time."
  He says he was asked to show that he had private means, which he did; and even then he was asked to show that he had employment to come to in Britain. He continues by saying:
  "So my passport was duly stamped and I was allowed to return to the land of my fathers. For this privilege, incidentally, I have to pay double taxation on my Australian

  195
  income, and although I am told, by those who have experienced this, that one may apply to have part of it refunded, it takes two years to get it back."
  He concludes:
  "I demand the redress of the wrongs and insults which have been heaped upon the heads of the loyal British subjects who share the British way of life, the same British blood, the same British tongue, the same religion, and the same history, and whose only crime is that they are descended from the courageous Britons who went to plant the British flag in far distant lands and by immense toil and sacrifice extended the bounds of what they were proud to call the Empire, yet never lost their intense love for the land of their fathers, and who love to come and have their loyalty rekindled at the fountain head of British influence and culture."
  I let this Australian speak, as I believe he does, for many in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Rhodesia. I turn to what, I believe, is the most important point of all, because it concerns us directly, as we obviously have a direct responsibility for our fellow British citizens.
  As I understand them, the present regulations say that those with British passports can enter this country only if their parents or grandparents were born here; if they have had five years' residence here; if they were naturalised in Britain; if they are in the service of the Crown; or if they are serving in a society or company established in Britain. I suggest that it all depends how these regulations are interpreted. This is really the burden of this debate. I hope the Minister will deal with some of these cases I have cited and explain how the regulations are interpreted and—because we cannot in an Adjournment debate discuss changing them—what powers the Home Secretary has in these matters, because, as I suggest, much depends on their interpretation.
  As they stand, many families who have served the Crown for generations, and whose parents and grandparents were therefore born abroad, can no longer enter their own country.
  A friend of mine who had an excellent record in the Royal Navy was born in South Africa and his wife was born in Germany, where her parents were then serving. His grandparents were born in India, and his son, a serving officer, was born in Mauritius. His son must now apply for British rather than Mauritian
  196
  nationality. What nonsense this is! A paragraph that struck me in a letter he wrote me stated:
  "No Englishman, Welshman, Scot or Northern Irishman by descent should lose his right and citizenship in order to accommodate some other worthy person having rights stemming from another source."
  I turn to a similar case of an Englishwoman living in Kenya, and shall quote the relevant paragraph from a long letter, which states:
  "It seems that all holders of Nairobi-issued ' D ' passports are affected by this new law "—
  the new Commonwealth Immigrants Act—
  "not just Asians, as some people think. It would be interesting to find out from the British High Commission just what the numbers are of 'British' British passports. From those, there must be quite a number who, like myself, will have the greatest difficulty in proving 'substantial' contact with Britain. Are we to be penalised because, unlike some, we did not run away at independence but showed faith and confidence in an African Government and decided to stay on? It seems sheer bad luck that I come from a family who, because of the exigencies of the service, married and bred abroad—mostly in India— since early 19th century. Apart from one, … I do not think that I can prove the English birth of a single close relative who has been born in England for well over 100 years. Unlike the Asians, I am not clamouring to get into England yet—not while I still have a work permit here—but the day may come when I may well have to apply for a single and not a return ticket, and then what? Queue? Already non-Asian holders of British passports have been refused seats by the airlines from here to England, for all that they had return tickets. This must be clarified, and quickly."
  I also have a case of a European who became a naturalised British subject many years ago in Kenya. He sent his son to school here and intended to retire with his family to this country after his work in Kenya was completed.
  What discretion has the Home Secretary in that kind of case? What discretion has he to allow in Englishmen now living in Kenya before Asians whose families have never had any direct connection with this country?
  Another example comes from rather nearer home. The British Consul-General in Antwerp sent out a letter to be disseminated through the British Legion to British subjects in Belgium, the relevant paragraph of which states:
  "Because of the complexity of the legislation"—

  197
  the Commonwealth Immigrants Act—
  "it is not possible to give full details in this notice, but in summary the position is that British subjects living in the Antwerp Consular District who were born outside the United Kingdom and who hold passports issued elsewhere than in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland will require in the passport an Entry Certificate marked 'Exempt'."
  The person who sent me this document says:
  "In fact, I read it as amounting to an instruction for a British subject to obtain a visa for entry to his own country, which is more than would be required from a Dutch or Belgian subject visiting the United Kingdom…. Such a situation is simply intolerable for a British subject, born in Hong Kong only because his parents were then in the service of the Crown overseas. Such a predicament for a man who is the eleventh in direct line of an old Scottish family simply does not bear thinking about."
  I have cited these cases to underline that many people who have maintained their links with this country and have sent their children to school here to maintain those links through the generations are now beginning to realise that they no longer have the right to return to what they still call home. This must be wrong.
  Finally, the whole question of passports and the right of entry has been underlined by the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport by Government order without appeal, and the problem has been compounded by the Government's veto on any investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner on the grounds that it affects relations or dealings between the Government and any other Government or any internal organisation of States or Governments.
  This could mean that anyone disagreeing with the views of the United Nations could have his passport impounded by the British Government. Whether this is true or not—and it probably is not—it shows that the Government are getting deeper into the mire and closer to unilateral action by the Executive without recourse to the courts—and we all know where that leads.
  Some years ago I visited Basutoland and found that, in order to maintain strict racial impartiality, when British civil servants were allowed home leave with their families, African civil servants were also allowed to take their families to Britain for a similar period. This
  198
  struck me as rather crazy, but at least it included both races. What the Government are now doing in relation to entry into Britain is to exclude both races. In the name of racial equality, we exclude those who are clearly British by descent, education and connection in order to appease those who have none of these connections and whose mother countries would not let our citizens enter them.
  India would demand a residence permit. Nigeria has many qualifications with regard to work, residence and control of activities. Jamaica requires a deposit or surety bond. In Britain, Commonwealth citizens can vote once their names are on the register in say from three to 12 months. In India, Pakistan and in East Africa, British citizens have no voting rights at all.
  Why no reciprocity? If all Commonwealth countries had the same rules, it could be fair, but they have not. Why do no other Commonwealth countries impose the bans on their own citizens that we impose on ours in the name of non-racialism? I believe that the British Government's main task is to protect the rights of British people, and what more basic right is there than to be able to return to the land of one's fathers?
  11.44 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for raising this question. He performed a service to the House when he initiated the Adjournment debate of which he spoke last December.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to some complaints he had received from Australia, and, of course, there are a number of cases which cause individuals some concern. I fear that often they are exaggerated and that the wrong end of the stick is taken. When things are explained in these cases and negotiations take place, the difficulties are usually removed. I will not go into details of such cases but my right hon. Friend is always anxious to mitigate difficulties where they arise and to administer the legislation for which he is responsible in as humane a manner as he can.
  The hon. Gentleman read part of a letter from an Australian clergyman married to an Ulster woman. While I

  199
  have not identified her, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me have full details of the case, together with details of the other specific cases he referred to. I will look carefully into them to find the answers. However, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of the case of the clergyman. Under the instructions given to immigration officers, in paragraph 29 of Command Paper 3064, an officer, when it comes to admitting the husband of a woman who is in any case entitled to come in, should take into account the strength of the wife's connections with the United Kingdom, including the length of residence here. It may well be that, in the circumstances in which it was explained, the problem here can be solved and I would be grateful for details of the case.
  The hon. Member also made reference to Sir Frederick Crawford. He would not expect me to follow him in that matter, which is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary. The House had one opportunity and will undoubtedly have others of debating those issues. I have no doubt that the hon. Member will seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on those occasions.
  I welcome the opportunity of this debate to explain some of the legal situations which are difficult to understand. I will explain the three categories into which some of the cases the hon. Member raised may fall. First, there are those who did not become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies when that status was created by the British Nationality Act, 1948. Secondly, there are those who did become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but lost it when the Colony with which they were connected became independent. Thirdly, there are the people who are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but who no longer have free right of entry into the United Kingdom.
  First a few words about the first class. In 1948, as a result of the Commonwealth Citizenship Conference held in the previous year, the British Nationality Act was passed which gave effect to a new conception of citizenship within the Commonwealth. Previously there had been only the single status of British subject,
  200
  but it had been agreed that in future each independent member of the Commonwealth should define its own citizenship and recognise citizens of every Commonwealth country as possessing the common status of British subject or Commonwealth citizen; the terms were to be synonymous.
  Thus the common status of British nationality would remain but it would be obtained by possessing the citizenship of any of the constituent parts of the Commonwealth. One such constituent part was the United Kingdom and Colonies, which together formed an entity for citizenship purposes, and the 1948 Act provided that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies should be automatically acquired by any person who was born or naturalised, or whose father was born or naturalised, in the United Kingdom or in any country which at that time was a Colony.
  Those British subjects who did not fall within that definition would still be British subjects, but would be citizens of some other Commonwealth country, or if not they would remain as British subjects without citizenship. To have extended the definition of United Kingdom citizen, for instance, so as to include any person whose grandfather had been born in the United Kingdom, or whose father had served in the Armed Forces, would greatly have extended the amount of dual citizenship within the Commonwealth.
  This meant that quite a number of people closely connected with the United Kingdom found themselves without citizenship of the United Kingdom, but the Act provided two ways in which such people could acquire United Kingdom citizenship. In the first place, as British subjects they were entitled at any time, after only 12 months' residence in the United Kingdom, to be registered as United Kingdom citizens. In the second place, the Act provided the Home Secretary with a temporary power to register such people as citizens if they had a male ancestor born in the United Kingdom and Colonies and had maintained a close connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies and intended to reside there in future. This facility was revived in 1958 for a further three years, but it lapsed at the end of 1962.

  201
  The second class of problems arises out of the subsequent grant of independence to many of the independent territories within the Commonwealth. In these cases the usual procedure has been that a citizenship scheme for the new country is worked out jointly between representatives of the United Kingdom and the territory concerned and embodied in the constitution of the new country. At the same time an Act is passed by this Parliament recognising the independence of the new country and, with certain exceptions, withdrawing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from all who automatically become citizens of the new country under its constitution. Clearly, as successive acts of independence take place the number of people who are exclusively citizens of the United Kingdom diminishes.
  The standard exceptions provide for the retention of United Kingdom citizenship by any person if he, his father, or his father's father was born, registered or naturalised in the United Kingdom or in a remaining Colony—in which case he retains citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These exceptions provide for nearly all the people who at the time of independence have a closer connection with the United Kingdom than with the newly independent country. These are some of the problems the hon. Member was concerned about.
  I recognise that, however the exceptions are defined, there will always be some people who fall outside them but who nevertheless belong to the United Kingdom. To give such people a right of option to retain United Kingdom citizenship would have given the right also to almost the entire population of the new country. To permit individual grants of citizenship would have set a very difficult task of administration, and would have aroused false hopes in many people who belonged to the new country but would have liked to retain the protection of the United Kingdom; in a sense to have been citizens of two countries at once.
  The law provides that any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who loses that citizenship on independence can easily get it back at any time if he has lived here for five years, or such shorter period as may be allowed, and the Home Secretary has some discretion
  202
  concerning that period. There is a similar facility for people abroad in Crown service, or in the employment of the United Nations, or of a company or society based in the United Kingdom.
  The third type of problem to which the hon. Member referred is that of the person who did not lose his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the Colony with which he was connected became independent, because he did not become a citizen of that country under its constitution, but has been deprived by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, of unconditional right of entry to this country. A number of the problems he referred to concern people who come within this category.
  The matter was fully debated in the House during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, and I need not go over all the ground again. In any case, time does not permit me to do so. I must point out to the hon. Member that that Bill, now an Act, was concerned with immigration into the United Kingdom, and the exceptions in Clause 1 were therefore all defined in relation to the United Kingdom. They cover persons naturalised in the United Kingdom, but it would not have been appropriate to. extend them to cover persons naturalised in a Colony. There may be people who get naturalised in a Colony who are more closely connected with the United Kingdom, but the natural supposition is that if a person is naturalised in a Colony he belongs primarily to the Colony. It may be true that some people of European race who were naturalised as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Africa feel that they belong to the United Kingdom more than to the African country in which they live, and one of those was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I must repeat that the definition in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act is not based on race but on connection with the United Kingdom.
  This point was raised in debate by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who were accusing the Government of including a racial clause in the Bill. I pointed out then, and I point out to the hon. Gentleman, that the connection with the United Kingdom was the valid point. The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed that I have

  203
  not gone into some of the cases to which he made reference—
  Mr. Wall: Could the hon. Gentleman say something about the Home Secretary's discretion on people coming from Kenya?
  Mr. Ennals: Those who wish to come here must apply first for vouchers of various sorts. They can apply for entry permits if they are coming as visitors or if they are dependants of those who are here. It was established at the time the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was introduced that they could apply for special vouchers, and the voucher system is working quite reasonably. Although it is administered by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, and in Nairobi by the High Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a right to look at individual cases. This is why I would say to the hon. Gentleman that either those cases ought to be submitted in Nairobi or, if he himself wishes to take
  204
  up a particular case with the Home Secretary, he or I will look at it with great care.
  It is always difficult to give a definitive answer when there is a broad definition. In each case, we have to look back and find out what the link was and to find the nature of the citizenship held already. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look carefully at each case which he cares to present to me.
  Even though I have not been able to deal with the precise cases in his mind, I hope that he will not feel that he has wasted his time, let alone that of the House and those reporting its proceedings. He has given me an opportunity to explain the principles on which this is worked, which are complicated and technical. I have greatly appreciated this chance to get on record the definition under which we operate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Disabled Persons (Survey)
  Disabled Persons (Survey)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Elderly Persons (Care)
  Sickle-cell Anæmia
  Sickle-cell Anæmia
  Teachers of Mentally Handicapped
  Teachers of Mentally Handicapped
  Local Authority Elections
  Local Authority Elections
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
HOSPITALS
  Psychopathic Patients
  Psychopathic Patients
  Adolescents (Psychiatric Problems)
  Adolescents (Psychiatric Problems)
  Fulham Hospital (Special Unit)
  Fulham Hospital (Special Unit)
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Psychiatric Social Workers (Training)
  Psychiatric Social Workers (Training)
  Leeds Regional Hospital Board
  Leeds Regional Hospital Board
  Ear, Nose and Throat Consultants (Birmingham)
  Ear, Nose and Throat Consultants (Birmingham)
  Economic Development Committee for Building (Banwell Report)
  Economic Development Committee for Building (Banwell Report)
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Medical Laboratory Technicians (Pay)
  Medical Laboratory Technicians (Pay)
  Resident Staff (Meals)
  Resident Staff (Meals)
  Casualty Units
  Casualty Units
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Bracknell Development Corporation
  Bracknell Development Corporation
  Piccadilly Circus
  Piccadilly Circus
  Pinewood Hospital Buildings, Wokingham
  Pinewood Hospital Buildings, Wokingham
HOUSING
  Basford, Beeston and Stapleford
  Basford, Beeston and Stapleford
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Personal Loans (Tax Relief)
  Personal Loans (Tax Relief)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Nationalised Industries (Grants and Loans)
  Nationalised Industries (Grants and Loans)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Output Budgeting
  Output Budgeting
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
  Electronic Engineering Industry
  Electronic Engineering Industry
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Civil Service (Merit Promotions)
  Civil Service (Merit Promotions)
  Blind Persons' Allowance
  Blind Persons' Allowance
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Bermuda (United Nations Resolution)
  Bermuda (United Nations Resolution)
  Nigeria (Supply of Arms)
  Nigeria (Supply of Arms)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  DISARMAMENT
  DISARMAMENT
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (AIRCRAFT-CHARTERS)
  FOREIGN SECRETARY (AIRCRAFT-CHARTERS)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Academic Medical Staff (Remuneration)
  Academic Medical Staff (Remuneration)
  Nursery Schools, Havering
  Nursery Schools, Havering
  Agricultural Research Council (Contract)
  Agricultural Research Council (Contract)
  Mental Illness (Research)
  Mental Illness (Research)
  Postgraduate Awards
  Postgraduate Awards
  Planet Icarus
  Planet Icarus
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research)
  Rheumatic Diseases (Research)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Engineering and Maintenance Workshop, Benton (Circular 100)
  Engineering and Maintenance Workshop, Benton (Circular 100)
AVIATION
  Third London Airport (Siring)
  Third London Airport (Siring)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Oil Tankers (Discharging Operations)
  Oil Tankers (Discharging Operations)
  Small Firms (Expert Advisers)
  Small Firms (Expert Advisers)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Disabled People (Wage-Stop)
  Disabled People (Wage-Stop)
  Immigrants (Dependants)
  Immigrants (Dependants)
RAILWAYS
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle Line
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle Line
ROADS
  Burphant Roundabout (Proposed Crossing)
  Burphant Roundabout (Proposed Crossing)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. Rex Martin
  Mr. Rex Martin
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Discharged Officers and Men (Nervous and Mental Conditions)
  Discharged Officers and Men (Nervous and Mental Conditions)
  UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
  UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
  NIGERIA
  NIGERIA
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cattle and Beef Imports (Southern Ireland)
  Cattle and Beef Imports (Southern Ireland)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Redundancy Payments (Penicuick)
  Redundancy Payments (Penicuick)
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Retail Price Increases (Nationalised Industries)
  Retail Price Increases (Nationalised Industries)
  Industrial Training Boards (Small Firms)
  Industrial Training Boards (Small Firms)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Leamington Spa
  Leamington Spa
COAL
  National Coal Board (Mr. Cecil King)
  National Coal Board (Mr. Cecil King)
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Housewives' Association (Representations)
  Scottish Housewives' Association (Representations)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Local Government Elections
  Local Government Elections
  Crofting Counties (Agricultural Executive Committees)
  Crofting Counties (Agricultural Executive Committees)
  Crofting Counties (Fishing and River Pollution)
  Crofting Counties (Fishing and River Pollution)
TECHNOLOGY
  Nimrod Project
  Nimrod Project
  Defence Procurement (Holding Contracts)
  Defence Procurement (Holding Contracts)
  Research Establishments (Civil Work)
  Research Establishments (Civil Work)
  Oceanography and Marine Sciences
  Oceanography and Marine Sciences
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Parliamentary Secretary (Private Secretary)
  Parliamentary Secretary (Private Secretary)
  Hardware
  Hardware
  Defence Research and Project Development
  Defence Research and Project Development
  Defence Research Establishments and Industrial Firms (Staff)
  Defence Research Establishments and Industrial Firms (Staff)
  Defence Contracts
  Defence Contracts
  Rolls Royce Factory, Cardiff
  Rolls Royce Factory, Cardiff
  Computer Merger Project
  Computer Merger Project

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

ST. KITTS AND ANGUILLA
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the unresolved dispute between the Administrations in St. Kitts and Anguilla, they will arrange for a resumed visit of the Parliamentary delegation to make recommendations for a settlement.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, it is less than six months since both parties to the dispute agreed on an interim settlement to run for 12 months. I think we should let the interim arrangements run a little longer while we continue to seek a longterm solution.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords; but is it not the case that, unfortunately, during that interim agreement there has been more alienation than harmony? And,
2
without accepting all the reports of exaggerated differences, would it not be better to anticipate these rather than go into the crisis of an explosion?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Parliamentary delegation to which my noble friend refers visited Anguilla and St. Kitts at the invitation of the Government of St. Kitts and Anguilla and with the agreement of those people in Anguilla. Therefore, if there were to be any initiative it must, in my view, come from the Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

MR. COHN-BENDIT
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of his declared intention to use force in carrying out his plans for this country, they would admit Mr. Cohn-Bendit if he presented himself for admission to this country.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD SIONIJAM): My Lords, if Mr. Cohn-Bendit should seek admission to this country his application would be decided in the light of all the relevant circumstances at the time.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that most satisfactory reply.

YOUNG VOLUNTEER FORCE FOUNDATION
2.38 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: 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 progress has been made by the Young Volunteer Force Foundation; what emoluments are to be paid to the Director and his principal assistants; and what practical results have so far been achieved.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, since the setting up of this scheme was announced in another place on November 14, 1967, I understand that the Foundation have been engaged in determining their general lines of approach, for which purpose they have appointed an Advisory Council composed of people with experience in the field of voluntary social service, in setting up their headquarters, and in recruiting staff and planning their training. By the end of this month, the Foundation will have a staff of 19 young people and the first field team will have started its training. The salaries paid to their staff are a matter for the Trustees. The Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Health, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, have issued a joint circular, Voluntary Community Service by Young People, which has led to an increase in requests to the Foundation for advice and help from local authorities and voluntary bodies. On Monday next the Prime Minister will hold a reception at 10 Downing Street to mark the inauguration of the Foundation and the commencement of its first field projects at Newport (Monmouthshire), Newcastle, Derbyshire and Gloucestershire.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed and informative reply. I should like to ask two short supplementary questions. My first question is: how is the Foundation progressing in raising the considerable sum of money that it will need when the Government grant is exhausted? Secondly, does the Minister think that if in about six months' time I asked a Ques-
4
tion similar to the one I have asked to-day she would be able to give more concrete information as to what has actually been achieved?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, so far as the question of the funds is concerned, as the noble Lord will remember there was an initial grant. I am afraid that I cannot give him the information as to how voluntary money is coming in at the moment, though I am quite sure that this could be obtained, and I should be happy to do that for him. So far as the noble Lord's other question is concerned, with such an excellent staff I feel sure that in six months time I shall be able to give the noble Lord a great deal more information.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, following the Answer given by the noble Baroness to my noble friend's original Question, would the Minister say what liaison is maintained between the Young Volunteers Force Foundation and the other community service bodies at national level?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I understand that the liaison is of an informal nature, but is quite good; and as the noble Lord will know, the Advisory Council is made up of people, many known to me personally through my own connection with voluntary social service, who give their time and their help as and when required, while still preserving the quite youthful nature of the original members of the Foundation.

FOREIGN SECRETARY'S TALKS ON VIETNAM AND E.E.C.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Moscow and Bonn; and whether in his talks with Herr Willi Brandt the Common Market was discussed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, as my right honourable friend

5
the Foreign Secretary explained in another place on May 29, his visit to Moscow was arranged mainly in the context of Vietnam but provided a useful opportunity for talks on a number of international questions. The main purpose of his visit to Bonn was to renew personal contact with Herr Brandt. He made clear to Herr Brandt our continued determination to enter the European Economic Community.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that informative reply, may I ask him whether the Foreign Secretary in his interview expressed any doubts at all about the wisdom of pursuing the application to the Common Market, in view of the widespread interest in NAFTA and having regard to the civil commotion in France?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, my right honourable friend expressed no such doubts. There are, indeed, no such doubts in our minds. We see no reason to change our views about where our interests lie. So far as the North Atlantic Free Trade Area is concerned, that is, of course, not a new idea although a number of experts and commentators seem to think it is. That possibility was examined in great detail some time ago. It was found not to be a viable alternative to membership of the European Economic Community, and we see no reason to change our views on that subject.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the first purpose of the visit to Moscow was to discuss the possibilities of peace in Vietnam, may I ask my noble friend whether he can make any statement about the result of those conversations?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords, I am afraid I can say nothing very informative about the exchanges that took place, except to say that both sides recognised that at this stage, with the Paris talks continuing on the Vietnam problem, there could be no question of an early reconvening of the Geneva
6
Conference. The general climate of opinion on both sides was that we should wait and see what develops in the Paris talks.

LATE SITTINGS AND DINNER ARRANGEMENTS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I inform your Lordships that dinner will be served this evening between 7 and 8.30 p.m. There will be no adjournment.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what arrangements there are about dinners for the period between now and when we rise for the Summer Recess?
LORD BESWICK: My Lord;, as the noble Earl, Earl St. Aldwyn, will know, and as I think most of us fear, the House should be sitting to a reasonably late hour on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, certainly between next Monday and the time of rising for the Summer Recess. Usually, therefore, dinner will be served on those evenings, but I suggest that we might confirm the arrangements on the Weekly Whips for the period immediately after each week's Whip.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think that would be an excellent arrangement, if we could have discussions through the usual channels and get it out so that people will know where they stand.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.46 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, when he rose to introduce the 1962 Transport Act, I am slightly puzzled how best to serve your Lordships' House this afternoon. This is a rather large Bill and one which on first glance could be said to be rather complex. If I were to adopt the usual manner of speaking to the principles of the Bill and then explaining the clauses, clearly I should be speaking at an intolerable length. I understand that this is a controversial Bill, but then no Transport Bill that has been presented to Parliament has been otherwise. I thought perhaps the best course for me was to seek to deal with the main doubts that arise on this Bill, but, despite that, I fear that I shall speak at some length, and I am bound to say my embarrassment about that is added to as—as I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I do apologise to your Lordships—I shall require to leave at about 4.30 o'clock this afternoon for some urgent talks which I do not believe can be postponed or delayed. Therefore, I apologise to the House for not being able to listen to all the speeches.
As I have said, this is a controversial Bill. The main element of controversy lies, I believe, within the content and, secondly, the size, and the Parliamentary consideration given to it in another place. The question of size I will refer to later in my speech, but at the outset I must deal with much of the Press and television comment and speculation on the consideration of the Bill in another place, in order that noble Lords may be under no misunderstanding as to the circumstances there and the reason why, I fully and frankly admit, the Bill comes to your Lordships' House ill-considered. We all know that Parliamentary time is relatively short. The Bill spent some 233 hours in another place, of which 191¼ was spent in Standing Committee. It was, in fact, the longest Standing Committee in the history of Parliament. The Opposition and one sole representative from the Liberal Benches said that they intended to fight the Bill line by line and clause by clause, and that, of course,
8
they did. But, my Lords, how the time was apportioned between clauses must be the responsibility of the opposition to the Bill. The Government cannot be blamed if it was decided to spend some 15 hours on one clause, leaving insufficient time for the consideration of other important clauses. The choice was that of those who were opposed to the Bill.
I referred earlier to the 1962 Act which was also guillotined in another place. Although this Bill is slightly larger, the 1962 Act was controversial and I think it is right that we should be able to compare the time taken in another place for the consideration of this Bill with the time taken on the 1962 Act. The average time taken per clause and Schedule of the 1962 Act was 56 minutes, and for this Bill it was 71 minutes. Therefore, as a whole infinitely more time was given for consideration of this Bill. I suggest that a more important factor was the time allowed after the fall of the guillotine. For both Report and Committee stages almost exactly twice the time was provided for this Bill as was provided for the 1962 Act in another place. In fact, in Committee the Act had 24 minutes allotted per clause and Schedule, while this Bill had some 47 minutes. Therefore, I do not think it can be said that the Government did not provide sufficient time for the consideration of this Bill in comparison with other legislation. If it comes to this House ill-considered, then the responsibility must lie with those who sought to oppose the Bill.
I recognise that there are certain clauses, some of which are very important, which were not considered, or some that were only briefly considered. If the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and his colleagues have points of substance on any of those clauses, I give him and the House the assurance not only that they will be most carefully considered by the Department, but that I, as the Minister responsible for the Bill in this House, will see the Minister, if not on a daily basis, on a frequent basis to see that the points are adequately considered by the Department. As I have said, in some quarters this is regarded as a controversial Bill. In regard to its contents, the criticisms appear in many guises. In essence, they can be boiled down to two main themes. First, there is

9
the charge that the Bill is a major nationalisation measure; secondly, that it could be described as an extension of Whitehall control. I do not believe that these criticisms are at all justified, and it is my intention, in presenting this Bill, to show that they are unfounded.
I take first the question of nationalisation. I make it perfectly clear from the outset that this Bill does not legislate for any extension of national ownership. It creates three new nationalised undertakings, the National Freight Corporation, the National Bus Company, and the Scottish Transport Group. But these new bodies are to be formed by the reorganisation in a more rational way of the transport assets which are already in public ownership so as to lay a foundation for a more efficient transport service for the public sector, for industry and for the travelling public. There is nothing in the Bill which involves the compulsory acquisition of privately-owned assets by the State.
Part I of the Bill provides for the establishment of a free-standing National Freight Corporation. The situation created by the 1962 Act is that over a substantial field of freight transport there is direct competition between the railways and the nationalised road haulage services. This direct competition, in the Government's view, is a waste of national resources and plays a significant part in the deficit of some £25 million on the sundries traffic of the British Railways Board. The purpose of the National Freight Corporation is to substitute for this competitive framework a comprehensive freight transport service in the public sector, making the best use of both road and rail. There obviously would be no point in interposing this new body in the handling of freight which the Railways Board handle in full trainloads or direct from siding to siding, and there is no intention of altering those arrangements. The intention is that the Freight Corporation should be responsible, commercially and operationally, for, broadly speaking, all the public sector freight which originates by road.
Thus, the Corporation, as well as taking over from the Transport Holding Company all its road goods transport services and freight shipping services, will also take over the railway freight sundries traffic and the Railways Board's collec-
10
tion and delivery vehicles. In addition —and this is an important part of this new concept—the National Freight Corporation will assume commercial responsibility for the freightliners—not for providing or hauling the trains, which will still be the railways' responsibility, but for the marketing of services and the collecting, handling and delivery of containers. These will enable the publicly owned road services to be rationalised and, most important, will enable the fullest economic use to be made of the freightliners for long-distance hauls.
The Freight Corporation will be a State undertaking responsible to the Minister, in the same way as the Railways Board and the Docks Board are to-day. The Corporation will operate mainly through subsidiaries. There will be the subsidiary road haulage companies, which will be taken over from the Transport Holding Company, and the Bill provides for the creation by the Railways Board of two new subsidiary companies, one for the sundries service and one for the freightliner business, which will be transferred to the Corporation.
There has been criticism of the proposal to make the Freight Corporation responsible for the marketing and development of the freightliner network. But we believe it is right to go ahead if the full potential of the concept is to be exploited because the Freight Corporation, with its ancillary services and its wider commercial contacts, will be better placed to press the development of the freightliners. Moreover, the Corporation will have every incentive, once it has invested in the new freightliner service, to see that its use is maximised. The freightliner service will be available, as it is now, on fair terms to private hauliers, as well as to all the subsidiaries of the Freight Corporation itself, and the Government attach the greatest importance to this in maximising the economic potential of the container concept.
But we fully recognise that British Rail should continue to have a substantial stake in this new technique which they have fostered and developed. For they will continue to provide the track and haulage for the freightliner trains, while the Corporation will own the containers, the road vehicles, the depots and their equipment. The Bill, therefore, provides

11
for the Railways Board to have a 49 per cent. stake in the company which will run the freightliners and an appropriate number of seats on the new Board. Thus British Rail will have no less an interest than the National Freight Corporation in securing the maximum economic development of the freightliners.
If I may remove one misconception which has been voiced about the Corporation, there is no question of its being a means of pushing traffic uneconomically on to rail. The Corporation will be a commercial undertaking. Apart from the initial task it will have of reorganising the present loss-making subsidiary business, in which it will be helped by a temporary grant, it will be expected to act on a completely commercial basis. While it is to be given the duty of securing that its traffic is carried by rail whenever that is efficient and economic, there is no question of traffic going by rail where transport by road is cheaper or more efficient. The Corporation's job will be to provide the best transport service—not a road service or a rail service, but a service by whatever means or combination of means of transport is the most efficient and economic in the circumstances.
I have mentioned that Part III of the Bill provides for the creation of the National Bus Company and the Scottish Transport Group. Again, these two new bodies are being created from assets already in public ownership and they do not extend the field of national ownership at all. The Bus Company will take over from the Transport Holding Company all its interests in buses and related business in England and Wales, while the Scottish Group will inherit from the Transport Holding Company not only the Transport Holding Company's Scottish Group of bus companies but also the interests in MacBrayne's and, from British Rail, the Clyde steamer services at present provided by the Caledonian Steam Package Company, Limited.
The point of all this is to create organisations which can devote their whole attention to taking maximum advantage of the opportunities that exist for rationalising services in the public sector, and for providing a fully integrated pattern of bus services and, in Scotland, of associated shipping services. Both of these
12
bodies will, like the Freight Corporation, be on all fours with existing nationalised transport undertakings. They will be commercial bodies with financial targets determined in accordance with Government policy. They will not be monolithic bodies, any more than the Freight Corporation. We fully recognise the need for manageable units in the bus industry and the intention is that both these bodies will continue to operate generally through subsidiaries, as the Transport Holding Company has operated hitherto.
It may be argued that the extension of nationalisation under this Bill will come not directly through compulsory acquisition of new businesses, but through new powers to be conferred upon the nationalised transport authorities, and particularly through the powers contained in Clause 48 of the Bill—the so-called manufacturing powers. If I may say so, there has been a great deal of nonsense talked about this clause. It has been represented as a gateway to backdoor nationalisation, as a device to strangle the garage and vehicle repair business, as a means for the State to get a foothold in motor retailing and so on. My Lords, that is utterly ludicrous. What this clause does is to free the nationalised authorities from the statutory restrictions on their powers to manufacture and repair, and to sell goods and provide services.
Broadly speaking, under the 1962 Transport Act they were restricted to carrying out those activities either for themselves or for other nationalised transport bodies. But if they have assets that can be applied for these purposes, if they have the equipment and the skills, why should they not be able to exploit them? Why should they be restricted? Why should they not be as free as their competitors in private enterprise to turn their assets to the best advantage? Why should not British Rail, for example, who have exceptional knowledge and skill in the making of containers, be able to aid our export business by making containers for export? Why should not London Transport be able to make the car parks, which they provide at some of their Underground stations, more attractive to those who use them by providing service facilities as well? If we want to develop our canals as a source of pleasure and recreation for the people of this country, why should not

13
the Waterways Board be able to sell alongside those canals the sort of goods that people using the canals want—food, fishing gear and the like?
That is the sort of thing which this clause will make possible. There is nothing insidious about it. It is not an attempt to squeeze private enterprise. These are permissive powers. Their purpose is simply to allow these authorities to develop and exploit their assets in the most profitable way, and in using those powers the authorities will be subject to exactly the same competitive pressures and commercial considerations as any private firm.
It has been said that this Bill is pro-rail. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in introducing the 1962 Act, made it clear that our transport problems were dominated by the recurring railway deficits. As the House will know, the deficit for 1967, despite strenuous efforts by the Board and by the Government, and despite increasing productivity, was practically identical, in real terms, to that of 1963. Clearly, therefore, the high hopes of noble Lords opposite that the competitive provisions of the 1962 Act would solve the problem have not been borne out. That is why a new approach is needed.
I ask the House to consider the proposals in the Bill relating to the Railways Board. Part IV provides the skeleton of a new charter for the railways. The provision of the Bill is based on the recommendations made to the previous Minister of Transport and the previous Chairman of British Rail by a Joint Steering Group, which they appointed in the summer of 1966 to oversee a review of certain aspects of railway policy. That was a deep and detailed review of the Board's finances and of management structure, in particular. The recommendations of the Group were published in October, 1967, in a White Paper, Railway Policy.
First, the Bill provides for a completely new financial remit for the Railways Board. A great many people, including noble Lords in this House, have for a long time been bemoaning the size, and the increasing size, of the railway deficit. Yet, at the same time, they rise in wrath when there is any suggestion of the cutting of unremunerative services. But until now no Govern-
14
ment have had the courage to look at the problem squarely and to propose a realistic solution. This is precisely what the Government have now done, because it is no good thinking that we can ever get rid of the deficit by chipping away here and chipping away there. The only answer, if the taxpayer is not to continue to dole out money on a colossal scale to the railways, is to promote a radical reconstruction of the Board's financial framework.
Accordingly, therefore, the Bill provides for the writing down of the Board's commencing capital debt to the Minister from the present level of £1,562 million, of which over £700 million was placed in suspense by the 1962 Act and has not borne interest since then, to £300 million. In addition, the Board will retain the liability for the £70 million borrowed from the Exchequer since January, 1963. This total sum is the maximum on which the British Railways Board can realistically be expected to meet interest out of revenues. Two-fifths of the Board's annual deficit at present is accounted for by interest, and it is quite absurd for the Exchequer to be paying the Board some £60 million a year simply in order that the Board may remunerate its capital liability.
Secondly, we have taken positive steps to relieve the Board of the heavy social burden which they have had to carry for far too long. If the country wafts the Board to continue to provide passenger services which are unremunerative but socially necessary, then we should be prepared to pay for them separately and not seek to bury them in a single deficit. We are providing in Clause 39 for special grants to the Board for such unprofitable passenger services. These grants will be estimated in advance; if the Board incur a greater loss they will have to finance the additional sum from other sources, but if they do better, then they will be able to add to their general revenue. So this system will give the Board every incentive to develop these unprofitable services and make them as attractive as they can.
We are also at last helping the Board to rationalise their track and signalling. The Joint Steering Group recognised that the operating costs of the railways were considerably increased by the need to maintain track and signalling which was surplus to their present-day needs. Under

15
Clause 40 the Minister and the Board will draw up a programme for the elimination of much of this surplus—for example, by reducing four tracks to two; this will involve new signalling to make better use of the remaining tracks—and grants will be payable, over five years starting 1969, towards the cost of the maintenance and operation of this surplus capacity until it has been eliminated.
Thirdly, the Bill removes altogether—and this is of vital importance—the safety net of deficit financing. From the beginning of 1969 the Board will be on their own. They will have their financial duty to break even, after providing for depreciation and interest; and they will, in line with Government policy, be set an appropriate financial target. If the Board fail to balance their books they can no longer look to the Government for support. This, I assure the House, is a tough remit to the Railways Board, and they are under no illusions as to what it means to them. But an essential part of this policy must be a more flexible and competitive pricing policy. As my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport announced in another place just before Whitsun, the Government have accepted the recent Report of the Prices and Incomes Board recommending that the Railways Board should adopt a more flexible and market-orientated pricing policy.
A new financial framework is of little value without management flair and drive. The Joint Steering Group recommended that the Railways Board itself should be restyled so that it will be better fitted for its future responsibilities. In future it will be a smaller Board. In addition to the Chairman, there will be members with specific responsibility for finance and planning and one who will be responsible for co-ordinating and controlling the day-to-day running of the business—a kind of chief general manager. With these exceptions, the Board members will be non-functional; and the intention is that the Board should be free to concentrate as much as possible on broad policy and long-term planning and financial control.
As I said, the Railways Board's task will be hard, but I am equally sure it will be totally realistic. For the first time they are being given a remit which they have
16
every chance of being able to fulfil, and therefore every incentive to do better. We have acknowledged in this Bill that the Government should meet the cost of the social obligation borne by our publicly-owned industry. We have made it quite clear that, for the rest, the industry must be run as a commercial business and as an efficient business.
My Lords, I believe that in another place my right honourable friend the First Secretary, when introducing the Bill, described it as "practical socialism". She may well have been helping herself in another place, but knowing the attitude of the majority of this House clearly her words were not for my aid or assistance. But whether it is practical socialism or not, I suggest that there is nothing doctrinaire in it; and may I say, as one who was once a businessman, that in my view it makes good commercial sense.
Those who regard the Bill as being no more than doctrinaire socialism will no doubt point to the provisions in Part V of the Bill for the so-called quantity licensing of road goods transport. They will represent this as a device for shoring up the railways because they are too weak to be exposed to the winds and tides of competition. The proposals of Clauses 71 to 81 have been attacked more heavily than any others in the Bill, and perhaps they are the most misunderstood. It may help the House if I describe briefly what they are. What we are proposing in the Bill is the eventual scrapping of the existing system of carriers' licensing—the "A", "B" and "C" licences, of which "A" and "B" licences are in themselves a form of quantity control, restricting competition even within the private sector—and its replacement, in so far as it represents a system of controlling the capacity of the road haulage fleet, by a system of special authorisation for heavy long-distance vehicles. It will apply to lorries of 16 tons maximum laden weight going on journeys of longer than 100 miles, or on shorter journeys down to 5 miles if they are carrying a few specified heavy goods, such as coal, certain ores or steel. The control will apply to no more than 100,000 vehicles out of a total goods fleet of some 1½ million, all of which are at the moment subject to carriers' licensing. Thus we propose sweeping away a great deal of the existing control.
Perhaps I can best help the House by dealing with some of the misconceptions

17
which have been commonly voiced in regard to this proposal. In the first place, it is not a distortion of economics; in fact, it is quite the reverse. The Bill sets out in Clause 74 the criteria against which the licensing authorities are to consider applications from road goods operators for special authorisations if they are objected to by the railways or by the National Freight Corporation, who will of course be operating the freightliners. These criteria are speed, reliability and cost. In other words, special authorisations will be refused only if the railways can carry the goods as cheaply, as quickly and as reliably as road transport can. It also follows that if road haulage can move goods more cheaply and quickly than rail, they will go by road. So the whole purpose of these provisions is to secure the most efficient and economic form of transport for long-distance freight movement in this country.
Secondly, of the 100,000 vehicles on which this system will bite, a great many will get special authorisations without any difficulty. If there is no competing rail service provided by the Railways Board or freightliner service by the Freight Corporation, or if the railway operators do not object, then the application will be granted without further question. It has been suggested that quantity licensing will see the end of long-distance road haulage; but road haulage is a very fast expanding business, and our calculations, as set out in a White Paper, The Transport of Freight, published last autumn, show that although it is likely that it will slow down the expansion of road movement, it will not reverse it. On the other hand—and this is of vital importance—the advantage that it will bring to the railways will be proportionately much greater, since the railways carry, in overall terms, so much less than road transport.
I understand that there are fears that quantity licensing will be cumbersome to administer, and that getting a licence will be a slow and difficult business. If the House wishes, perhaps we can go into this matter in more detail in Committee. The Government see no reason why quantity licensing, once the system is in operation and fully understood, should be any less flexible or more subject to
18
red tape than the present system; and, of course, it will apply to fewer vehicles.
Lastly, my Lords, I must stress that the Government have at all stages made it clear that it is their policy that the quantity licensing system shall not—I repeat, "shall not"—come into effect until the freightliner network has pro red itself satisfactory. The whole purpose of this scheme is to maximise the economic use of rail for freight, and to help relieve the roads as much as is economically sensible. In this way we shall be ensuring that our resources are put to the most effective and economic use.
But quantity licensing is only one part of our policy for a modern, efficient road haulage industry. The Bill also provides two other fundamental changes. The first is what has become known as quality licensing. Although we are proposing the abolition of the carriers' licensing system, we are firmly of the view that there must be control over the standards of operation in the industry. This we propose to achieve by a system of licensing of all operators of vehicles over 3½ tons maximum permissible weight. This will apply to some 600,000 vehicles altogether, including, of course, the 100,000 which are also liable to quantity licensing. Clauses 59 to 70 of the Bill provide for this scheme. Its object is to ensure that operators have the proper resources f Dr maintaining their vehicles in safe condition and that someone in the firm should be legally responsible for the stab, of the firm's lorries.
The second big change which we make in the framework under which the road haulage industry operates is a reduction of the drivers' maximum hours of work. Again this is a policy designed to increase safety on the roads. To-day's traffic conditions are vastly more taxing than in the 1930s, from which dates the present law affecting drivers' hours of work. We cannot afford the risk of over-tired drivers. These proposals in Part VI of the Bill will apply to all goods vehicles and will apply also to buses. I am confident that the House will welcome these proposals in the Bill.
Again, the policy for inland waterways outlined in Part VII of the Bill, far from being doctrinaire, is a highly realistic assessment of the future potential of our canal network—not only its commercial

19
prospects but also its potential for recreational purposes.
My Lords, there has been much criticism of this Bill, criticism that it extends Whitehall control over local affairs and pushes still further the doctrine that "the man in Whitehall knows best." I think that this criticism has arisen largely over the provisions in Part II of the Bill, which deals with passenger transport authorities. In fact, what we are proposing goes the other way. We are proposing a concentration of local authority responsibility. We believe that local government must decide the prices and patterns of public transport which can best meet the needs of their localities in the light of their plans for road building, traffic management and parking control. It is because the Passenger Transport Authorities are a new kind of local body that they will have to feel their way in the exercise of their wide responsibilities. For that reason it is desirable that the Minister should be in a position to help and guide them. The Minister must also be the guardian of the public interest generally (and of the national finances, in particular, that will be available) and, of course, of the private interests that remain. So the Minister has been given certain powers in regard to the Passenger Transport Authorities. But I must stress at once that these powers are very limited indeed, and the charge that the Passenger Transport Authorities will be creatures of the Minister and nothing more really does not stand up to examination.
My Lords, public transport does not operate in isolation. The crucial element in the complex structure of transport in our towns and cities is traffic conditions. This again is a matter for local government. But if local authorities are to be able to cope realistically and imaginatively with the traffic problems that we face in our cities because of the continually increasing car population, they need a wider concept of traffic regulations and greater flexibility and freedom from Whitehall supervision over details in their powers to control traffic. That is what we have set out in Part IX of the Bill. Far from increasing Whitehall control and influence, we are in this Bill setting out to give the local authorities much greater freedom and responsibility and a chance
20
to take a real grip on the transport and traffic problems of their areas.
My Lords, I come now, lastly, to the size of the Bill. Noble Lords will now realise that it contains a great deal of meat. I make no apology for this. The plain fact is that the developments in technology, in our economy and in our social structure have brought transport to the threshold of a new era. We face a great many problems in different fields of transport; but the problems are to a large extent inter-related. Transport cannot be reorganised in bits and pieces. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that one of the great causes of the present difficulty is that we have in the past dealt with transport in bits and pieces. This is why, in this Bill, we attempt a comprehensive solution to the needs of the next few years. To leave out some of the Bill, to let some of our transport system stagnate while we legislate to enable other parts to develop, would not make any sense. This Bill has been said to be anti-road or pro-railway. It is neither of these. It is a Transport Bill. The Government are not concerned to champion a particular kind of transport or a particular lobby. We are concerned with the movement of people and goods, whether for business or for pleasure, by the most efficient, most convenient and cheapest means, given the resources at our disposal. It is high time that we began to concentrate on the function rather than the means. What matters is the kind of job that needs to be done, the sort of service that needs to be provided. This is precisely our objective in this Bill. It is because this Bill provides this country with a system of transport which is both realistic and comprehensive that I ask the House to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for giving us such an interesting and comprehensive explanation of this vast Bill. May I first acknowledge the explanation that he gave us of why he will have to leave the House in an hour's time to deal with his very important Commonwealth obligations, and say that he certainly takes with him our best wishes. I turn now to the points which

21
the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made. I thought, if I may say so, that his exposition of the Bill differed strikingly from that which his right honourable friend gave in another place. If anything could be done to make it look a respectable, objective Bill, certainly the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd would do it; but even his great powers of Parliamentary dialectic would be strained to do it. However, we all enjoyed it; and if, now and again, I find myself giving a slightly different version of some aspects of the Bill from that which he gave, I do not think he will be altogether surprised.
I certainly agree with him that this is a record-breaking Bill. As he says, it is a record for length and, I believe, a record for the guillotine. I should think the volume of opposition from industry throughout the country is also a record. The Bill's only friend outside is Transport House which fathered it—or perhaps I should say mothered it. The right honourable lady who introduced it last Autumn said that she commended the Bill to the Labour Party Conference with these words:
"It will give to our road transport unions the guarantee of a growing and expanding sector of public ownership"—
That is in sharp contrast to the noble Lord's version—
"and will give to us all a Socialist transport policy."
The truth is this: although there is much that is good and much that is purely technical in the Bill, this theme of the Socialist doctrinaire approach runs through large parts of it. Noble Lords opposite may like it; but I must say from this side of the House that we do not like it and do not think that those aspects of the Bill are applicable to our transport problems. Outside, in the rest of the country, I think it would be true to say that the Bill is being received with increasing alarm as people begin to understand its implications and the sharp increase in prices which it is bound to cause.
Transport accounts for some 15 per cent. of all industrial costs, and therefore increases here—and this is something that the Prices and Incomes Board noted the other day—affect the price of everything, both for consumption at home and for export abroad. The Multiple Shops Federation estimated that the Bill would
22
add some 3d. in the pound and the Budget transport provisions a further 1½., so with that on top of the general price increase which we have already had in the last six months since devaluation and which amounts to over 8d. in the pound our people are, not unnaturally, worried about the rise in prices which they have already experienced and the further increase which this Bill is likely to bring in the budgets of every household in the country; and this at a time when it is Government policy to hold incomes stationary. This, then, is the background to our debates on the Bill, and in my judgment it more than explains the unusual interest in them; because there is a common hope that our people may be saved 'from the worst features of the Bill, and I feel that they look to noble Lords here to do what they can to modify those worst features.
I should like to say a word about the principles which will guide us in considering the Bill. First, as to the Bill itself, it is quite clear from the Labour Party Manifestos in both the 1964 and the 1966 Election campaigns that the Government have an electoral mandate to legislate on transport policy, and in these circumstances I would advise my noble friends that we should give the Bill a Second Reading. But on l he Committee stage we shall feel free to propose Amendments which, in our judgment, will improve the Bill and relieve our overstrained national economy from its worst features. I hope that these Amendments may win the support of noble Lords in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has, in characteristic fashion, done everything possible to meet the timetable problems within the limits imposed by the massive flow of legislation which is continually coming towards us. The provisional arrangement is that the Government will give us nine days in Committee. But even if we sit until 10 o'clock each night, and possibly later sometimes, that is all too little time to debate a Bill of this magnitude and importance, especially when, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has remanded us, there are some 50 guillotined clauses still awaiting even the first syllable of debate.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, dealt admirably in his explanation of why the timetable was the

23
way it was in the Commons, but I am bound to say that I could give him a very different version. The fact is that this is a gigantic Bill and far exceeds the range and substance of any other Transport Bill; and of course more time is needed. The right course would be to operate our normal arrangements and to set out on the Committee stage and go on until we finish. But we will do our best within the Government timetable and we must see how we get on. We certainly think that it is in the best interests of Parliament that the Bill should be properly discussed and be seen to be dealt with here on its merits. I have explained this timetable dilemma so that we may know here, and so that our people outside also may know, that although the Government cannot cut debate in your Lordships' Chamber by guillotine, much the same effect can be achieved when the Government forces through Parliament more Bills than Parliament can really cope with. My noble Leader, Lord Carrington, has already protested strongly about it and said that it is not in the best interests of government, and I should like warmly to support him.
I turn to the Bill itself. The broad transport aims with which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, dealt so convincingly are of course unexceptionable. The first is to find the right relationship between road and rail freight in the interests of making the best disposition of our economic resources in the field of transport. Every country in the world is trying to do that. The second, in regard to passenger transport, is to achieve the maximum co-ordination of public transport in our major conurbations. Again, every advanced country in the world is trying to do that. Then, in respect of road freight transport there is the need to strengthen safety regulations for vehicle maintenance and drivers' hours, make new arrangements for inland waterways and a host of miscellaneous items, most of which are not objectionable in principle. Indeed the third and fourth categories are mainly technical and acceptable in principle, though there are many points of interest I think we should debate. It is the first two, the right relationship between road and rail transport and the best method of providing co-ordinated passenger
24
transport in our big conurbations, where the main areas of controversy arise; and that is where, in my judgment, Party political influence is out of place. Nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said removes the weight of that comment from me.
My Lords, there is no simple answer to the problem of the right relationship between road and rail freight. The right answers could be found only by detailed objective study to elucidate all the facts, followed by a dispassionate judgment which has carefully weighed the pros and cons of each possible course. That would be the only realistic approach to these problems; but that is very far from the approach made by the Minister. It was, perhaps, unfortunate that the Minister of Transport of the day held views of such extreme political strength that even such an uncontroversial thing as a traffic light always seemed red in her care. The Minister declared her intention to give us a Socialist Transport Bill with an expanding sector of public ownership, and that is the theme which runs through these two major parts of the Bill, irrespective of the merits; and it makes in places in the Bill a curious contrast with the many technical sections which I recognise as having been carefully and expertly built up inside the Ministry of Transport. I would say, in passing, that the good features in the Bill are in danger of being blighted by the bad.
The first thing the Bill does to the railways, as the noble Lord has told us, is to take away the freightliner service and transfer it to the new body, the National Freight Corporation. The freightliner service is the major 20th century achievement of the railways. Sir Stanley Raymond, the previous Chairman, called it the brightest jewel in their crown. Our rail freight system, as many noble Lords will know, is old-fashioned. It was laid out in the 19th century to carry coal and minerals and it is only with difficulty that the railways could adapt that system to meet the need imposed by the expanding traffic of the day, the merchandised traffic. Therefore, until the freightliner service appeared the railways had been fighting a losing battle to get their share of merchandised transport. So this was the great breakthrough which occurred in Lord Beeching's day to meet the needs

25
of this expanding section of our transport, and after a slow start it has been making good progress.
What a desperate blow to the railways was the removal of this liner service! We know from Sir Stanley Raymond, when he was dismissed from the Chair for opposing it, just how it affected the railways. It seems a mighty strange action to me that noble Lords opposite, many of them with personal interests in the railways, many of them being friends of the railways, could do such a thing as this which so demoralises the service from top to bottom. This astonishing Transport Bill begins in Part I by giving the railways this massive body blow, and goes on in Part V to give them the consolation prize of tying the hands of their competitor behind his back by the innovation of quantity licensing for road haulage. I suppose it is fair to say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, "Fair shares of grief for all".
It is interesting to note that the 1967 Railways Board Report takes credit for the improving relationship with industry. Well, I congratulate them. That is good. But if the Government go ahead with quantity licensing they will poison the relationship with industry for the next generation. That method of finding the right relationship between road and rail is easily the worst feature of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rightly anticipated that we are going to be extremely critical of it.
It starts from the premise—and this is in the Government's White Paper—that freight should be forced off the roads in order to fill the spare capacity of rail. This is to be achieved by special licensing procedure for all heavy lorries—those over 16 tons—for journeys of over 100 miles. Applications for such traffic licences are to be notified to British Rail and the National Freight Corporation, and licensing authorities are to grant licences only if the road haulier can prove that the traffic can be handled more efficiently by road than by rail. In other words, all journeys over 100 miles for heavy lorries will in future be at the discretion of the railways and the National Freight Corporation.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord would like to be corrected on this. This will happen only within freightliner areas. Where there is
26
no freightliner service the licences will be free.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his correction, but this is still a substantial part of the country; and over this large part of the country the new scheme is throwing a spanner into the works of the national economy. Your Lordships may well ask whether the former Minister of Transport intended, instead of sunning railways to serve the country, to run the country to serve the railways.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Utter nonsense!
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I look forward with interest to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, explaining how he justifies stripping the liner service from the railways as the best method of equipping them for the future.
This scheme bristles with objections and anomalies, which we can discuss in detail in Committee. But perhaps I might mention now what, in my judgment, is the worst feature. This is the arbitrary depriving of the industrialist or merchant of his commercial judgment on the best means of transporting his own goods. Managers earn their living by using their commercial judgment to decide on the method of transport best suited to their business, in terms of cost, speed, freedom from breakage, interlocking with other journeys, and so on. And to substitute a bureaucratic machine to take the place of the free working of this highly competitive transport market cannot but result in delays, uncertainties and increased costs. Nothing that the noble Lord can say can possibly alter that.
The present Minister seems inclined to modify its worst features, and I congratulate him; but I do not believe that any future Minister will ever make the necessary order to introduce this scheme. It will just sit on the Statute Bock But when we come to the Committee stage, we shall wish to debate these major issues critically. My own view is that the Geddes Report, which recommended that we should free the whole road haulage system from licensing, is the right answer.
With regard to the Part IV proposals for railways, with which the noble Lord dealt and which involve the substantial writing down of the capital structure and

27
the strengthening of central management, I would say that the writing down of capital structure follows the principles of the 1962 Act and so, broadly, does the strengthening of central management; and I welcome both in principle. I also welcome the point which the noble Lord made cogently about the ending of deficit financing. I am sure that this is what should be aimed for. But I would make this observation: that this involves accepting the loss of a large sum of taxpayers' money, and since we have the Prices and Incomes Board's report on the railways, which was not available in another place, to inform our debates, we shall wish to inquire what further action the Government are taking to correct the disturbing picture indicated by that Report. It indicates serious weakness on the marketing side. In passing, I would say that this is one more reason for not stripping rail of the liner-trains, which must make a strong appeal to their most enterprising officials.
Part VI of the Bill attempted to assess an annual charge for freight vehicles related to the wear and tear which each took out of the road. As we know, it has now been dropped. As I have made such stringent criticisms of what is in the Bill, I should like to say that I believe that the principle in Part VI—that is, the scientific evaluation of track costs—is the right one to pursue. This is the right approach to getting the proper relationship between road and rail. The published Report on track costs is extremely interesting, but inconclusive. Of course, this is a very complex subject. I am sure that this is worthy of further study, and I hope that the Government will pursue it. Meantime, in case anyone feels anxious about whether road haulage is not carrying its fair share, let me remind your Lordships that the financial provisions which were imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget on road haulage about double what was put on to them in Part VI, so we need have no fear that road haulage is not paying its share.
In Part II of the Bill, as the noble Lord has told us, the Government attempt to solve the problem of public Transport in the major conurbations by the setting up of Passenger Transport Authorities. I do not propose to go into this subject in
28
any detail to-day, but we shall put down a number of Amendments in Committee in order to promote debates on it. A Passenger Transport Association involves a complex five-tier structure of the Minister, the local authorities, the Passenger Transport Authority, the Passenger Transport Executive (which is the operating body) and the National Bus Company, which provides the buses for the P.T.E. Let me remind your Lordships that the P.T.A. can also take responsibility for commuter rail service loss, which would have to be paid by precept on the ratepayers. Therefore the proposed set-up has very important implications for everybody concerned.
There are just two points that I would make now about the Passenger Transport Authorities. The first is that the P.T.A. concept appears to be a copy of the pattern of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. We have had the benefit of Professor Lentall's article in The Times last March, describing this Authority in some detail. It appears that after three years' operation, it is in such a state of chaos and insolvency that the Federal Government have set up a special commission to investigate it. I suggest that this is more than enough to warn us here in England to tread cautiously and not to plunge in too heavily. We can learn a great deal from the Americans about the management of road traffic, but we can learn from their failures as well as from their successes. Let me add, on the other side, that in spite of this discouraging result there is an idea here in creating a co-ordination authority for conurbations. Something more needs to be done, and we should like to see the Bill improved by strengthening local authority control. Although I would not perhaps go so far as the charge, to which the noble Lord referred, that the Passenger Transport Authorities are to be the creatures of the Minister, I think that there is a wrong adjustment between local authority control and the Minister, and in Committee we shall seek to amend that and try to insure against the worst aspects of the American experience.
The second point I would make is that these are very complex structures, and although there were lengthy debates on Committee stage in another place I still think that the public is largely unaware of how they are going to work, and therefore our debates here could clarify

29
this subject. I hope that we shall be able to convince the Government not to plunge into setting up the four Passenger Transport Authorities which the previous Minister forecast. I am sure that it would be wise to proceed cautiously in this field. Let us take one at a time and learn by experience.
The last point I want to refer to is Clause 48, already well known as the "nationalisation clause". The noble Lord called it prospectively the "manufacturing clause". This clause provides that any Board which appears in this Bill shall have power to manufacture and repair for outside bodies (this is the point) pretty well anything it likes, subject only to the Minister's consent. For a Party committed to the extension of public ownership, it amounts to giving the Boards carte blanche to establish any new industry which they fancy. I suggest that, in the light of the unhappy losses turned in by some of our nationalised industries, it really is the height of folly to consider a major extension of this kind now. Section 13 of the 1962 Act, to which the noble Lord referred, provides fully for the needs of these Boards and authorities in enabling them to manufacture or repair anything required for their own business.
The policy that I am advocating, my Lords, is not restrictive. The noble Lord won a cheer from his side when he asked: Why should not nationalised industries have power to extend in this way in the same way as private industry does? The answer is quite simple: because private industry has to carry the extra taxes to finance, first of all, their capital, and then, should they suffer them, their losses. There is a limit to which this country can do this. And, Heaven knows! we have already reached it. This is why we are against this extension: because we think that it is damaging to the national economy.
In conclusion, I would mention briefly the 50 clauses which fell under the guillotine in another place. Those, as I have said, we shall wish to debate, and we shall put down Amendments. In the main, they deal with secondary matters, but there are some important points there. The transport managers' licences are, I think, most important, and we should debate them carefully. There are important proposals in relation to the
30
Inland Waterways Board. Then there are level crossings, and a number of other important matters. My Lords, by the nature and volume of their legislation the Government have set us a stiff task, but we shall spare no effort to give this monster Bill adequate debate, and where possible we shall seek to improve it.
3.53 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gave us a most admirable survey of the difficulties in which we on this side of the House find ourselves with regard to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, thought that Lord Shepherd almost made it respectable. Well, my Lords, this is a much more respectable Bill than the Bill that was first introduced into another place last December. It has been modified considerably, and this is partly no doubt why the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was able to make it appear respectable.
The Liberal Party have opposed the Bill because of overriding bad features, about which I will speak in a moment, although this does not mean that we do not welcome some of its provisions. Indeed, we recognise that it is a bold and imaginative attempt to co-ordinate all the difficult strands in the transport passenger field, and to make for the first time a real transport policy. Perhaps that has been its undoing, as well as its virtue. In saying that, I am not forgetting the little lecture which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, read to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about piecemeal legislation. Its fault has been, possibly, in spite of the fact that the Bill is bold and imaginative, that it has tried to do too much and too quickly. At the same time it has come near to clogging the works in Parliament, and may clog the works in the field of transport. We hope—and I feel sure this goes not only for noble Lords on these Benches, but also those,on the Conservative Benches—that it can be further modified in your Lordships' House in such a way that it will not clog the works in the field of transport, rind also in such a way as to show that Parliament has not got itself "gummed up" over it.
As I have said, we welcome some of the provisions of the Bill. For example,

31
no one would deny that our complicated, but invaluable network of inland waterways is an asset which has not been exploited for the last fifty years. The provisions of the Bill make use of the waterways for recreational and commercial purposes and to us on these Benches this is commendable. We recognise, also, that regulations controlling the permitted hours of work for drivers of heavy goods vehicles, which were laid down, as the noble Lord said, thirty years ago, are inadequate, if not unsafe, under modern traffic conditions, and in relation to production and permitted hours of work in other industries.
The noble Lord drew attention to the enormous toll of life on our roads, and said that this justified the principle of quality licensing. With this I agree, and I think noble Lords on the Conservative Benches would agree as well. I think, also, it is right to mention that the system of grants for unremunerative but socially necessary passenger rail services is something that we are glad to see in the Bill. My Party were rather disappointed that something of this nature was not in the Conservative Government's Act of 1962. Because the Bill contains clauses of this kind, which we all find commendable, it is all the more regrettable it contains these far-reaching proposals of a needlessly restrictive nature which compel us to oppose it.
Part 1 of the Bill is designed to establish a National Freight Corporation to take over the functions of the Transport Holding Company, which has, on the whole, functioned well during the years of its existence. The provisions in this Part of the Bill which enable the Corporation to extend the activities of the former Transport Holding Company in the field of road haulage, and the intention to set up a subsidiary company to take over the controlling interest in the railways—that is, the freightliner service—we regard as wasteful and quite needless in relation to a properly integrated transport system. We shall try to amend these proposals in Committee to restrict the Corporation's activities to what we regard as its proper function; namely, the integration of road haulage, whether it is in the private or the public sector, and the rail freight services.
32
Part II of the Bill, which establishes the Passenger Transport Authority's area, is far too sweeping in concept. There is no need for a Passenger Transport Authority to have the right to set up garages, to sell petrol, spare parts and even motor vehicles, as well as to repair them. Equally, we believe that these P.T.A.s should await the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, because it is almost certain that they will recommend some form of regional local government, and we believe that the P.T.A.'s should be designed to fit into this sort of pattern. This is another matter which we hope to discuss in some detail on the Committee stage.
Later in the Bill we have the introduction of this new system of quality licensing, and this, in our view, should be reviewed. I take the point the noble Lord made, that the old system of A, B and C licences is quality licensing; and we have had quality licensing in this country for forty years, or whatever it may be, as indeed has any other modern Western society. But when all that is said and done, we feel that this Part of the Bill in its present form will cause hardship to the remoter areas of the country, and especially to those areas designated by the Board of Trade for development. We shall oppose this Part of the Bill outright, because we do not believe it is capable of reasoned amendment. The introduction of the transport managers system of control over quality and quantity licensing is another example of wasteful legislation. Again, I take the point that one of the reasons for this is that there should be some actual person who can be pinned down legally; but I should have thought that it could be done in some other way. This system will be costly to industry, and will require many more civil servants to administer it. In our view, it does not serve any useful purpose.
I have said that we recognise that drivers' hours must be reviewed, but we want greater flexibility than is provided in the Bill. What I mean by this is that if we do not make these provisions flexible the drivers themselves will do so—they will make them flexible by operating them illegally. So let us try to get flexibility here before flexibility is found elsewhere in the wrong sort of way. Again, the existing provisions will

33
be particularly harmful in the remoter areas of the country. My honourable friend the Member for Bodmin managed in another place to obtain valuable concessions from the Minister, but I agree with him that they do not go far enough.
Lastly, I should like to say something about Clause 48, which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has spoken about so effectively. In spite of the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that in fact this does not mean nationalisation at all, I cannot help feeling that nevertheless it gives apparently unlimited powers to the new boards and authorities to enter an enormous field of manufacturing and trading, which seem to have no connection with transport at all. This clause we regard as—I will not say "a backdoor to nationalisation", but at any rate a back-door to a wider area of control than we in the Liberal Party feel we can accept; and we shall try to remove these provisions. The Bill has been most effectively modified in another place, and I hope that the same thing will happen here, because, as I have said before, I regard this Bill as more good than bad. I hope that noble Lords opposite will feel that they are able to accept Amendments and changes of the sort which will enable us on these Benches to vote with the Government when it comes to the Third Reading.
4.2 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAK-RIDGE: My Lords, I wear to-day the tie of the Royal Corps of Transport. This Corps, as your Lordships may know, was formed three years ago by the amalgamation of the transport units of the Royal Army Service Corps and the Corps of Royal Engineers. By that means was fulfilled the teaching of that great prophet in the transport world, Sir Eric Geddes, who made such a big contribution to victory in World War I. After the war he was made the first President of the Institute of Transport, and at his inaugural dinner he made a statement of which the following is an extract:
"The State must harmonise the operation of the different agencies as between themselves in the interests of the community as a whole. … In future our effort will be, I hope, to encourage each agency of transport to undertake that part of the total work which it, owing to its special qualities, can most efficiently and economically perform."
34
Having made that beginning, your Lordships may be expecting me to say that I think this is a perfect Bill, but you will find that I am not going to say that. I do, however, think that it is a mistake to argue against the principle of the integration of transport, which I believe to be a perfectly sound principle. But there are various ways of trying to reach it, and some of them are not as sound as others are.
Incidentally, your Lordships may know that there is another Minister of Transport in another place trying to get his Bill through Parliament, a Bill very similarly framed to this one and aimed in the same direction. But Herr Leber is rather unfortunate. He is finding that it takes more time to get his Bill through because the Constitution bequeathed to the country by the Occupying Powers made no provision for that useful silencer of opposition, the guillotine. As for this Bill, there has already been talk about the shortage of time which Parliament has in which to consider it. I should like to offer another thought in that connection. I think it is very unfortunate that we are so pressed for time when we are discussing transport. We have not had a proper debate in this House on transport since the Beeching Report (if I may call it so) was brought before us several years ago. This Bill hay been preceded by a snowstorm of White Papers, which I have read, but it has not been found possible to find time to debate any of them; and that is one of the reasons why we find ourselves in our present mix-up.
I was, I must confess, with deference to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd (he is not here now but he may read what I say), prejudiced by the remark made by the Minister when she told the country that she was producing a Socialist transport policy. I think it was a mistaken thing to say, because I do not think the country is looking for a Socialist transport policy, nor even a Tory transport policy. I think it is just looking for a good transport policy. It is looking for a transport policy which it feels ha; been carefully worked out by a bunch of intelligent men and women honesty seeking to produce an answer to a problem that has defeated and baffled their predecessors through generations. 'That is what we are looking for.

35
To turn to the Bill itself, the features which I find most difficult are, I suppose, just those which were interpolated to show what a very Socialist Bill it was. If I may give your Lordships an example, I would refer to the clause which gives licence to the railways to manufacture for outside customers. I do not see much wrong in that, but I think that it was unnecessary and unnecessarily provocative. Look at the way it has provoked our very mild friend, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. He is most indignant about that clause, and it was unnecessary. Does anybody really imagine that the Railways Board have the time or the money to create a great commercial organisation to get the business which this clause is supposed to envisage? Besides, if the railways really get into the manufacturing business, they will find themselves in competition with others, of course; and 'who will be those others? Why, their best customers. The railways know that perfectly well. I think this was the sort of clause that was unnecessary and has given rise to a lot of bad feeling.
As to the best parts of the Bill, those parts which please me best are those which implement the Report of the Joint Study Group chaired by Mr. John Morris. I do not know Mr. Morris myself, but I should like to congratulate him and his colleagues on producing an excellent Report. I suppose I like best in it those parts which deal with the structural organisation of the railways. I like them best because, if I may be forgiven for saying so, they very much reflect my own philosophy on the subject.
To deal with the Bill in a little more detail, I will speak briefly on Part I and Part II and nothing else. As regards Part I, which sets up the National Freight Corporation, I am not going to say much about quantity licensing. There is a reason for that, my Lords. When I had a responsibility for the finances of the railways I put forward very similar proposals myself, not under quite such a grand name, and I should think that if any of your Lordships found yourselves in the same situation you would probably search round for similar proposals yourselves. My proposals were not perfect and they were,
36
as I expected, promptly "shot down in flames" by the Conservative Government of the day. These proposals are not perfect, either. They evidently cause the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, many misgivings; he expressed himself in a very balanced and reasoned fashion, but he is reflecting thoughts that are held widely in the country and are certainly widely held among industrialists.
This is a matter to which the Government must give a great deal of thought. In my view, it will depend very much on how the thing is worked out in practice. If the railway management are going to make use of these clauses to try to grab business which they are not capable of handling as cheaply and as efficiently as road transport, there will be serious trouble. There is an old saying to the effect that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can pass all kinds of laws, but when you show an industrialist something you want him to buy you will find it hard to persuade him to buy it if he does not like it. The Minister has said that he does not propose to implement these quantity licensing provisions straight away until the position can be seen more clearly. That is a wise provision and I think the Government might quite properly decide not to rush this horse too fast at his fence.
On another feature of Part I mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, I am in complete agreement with him. I am rather shocked by the decision to take the freightliner service away from the railways and to give it to the National Freight Corporation. It is hard luck on the railways; this is really a winner that they have produced, and to have it taken away from them and given to somebody else is most regrettable. But there is another thing which is rather more serious. I have always understood that it is a golden rule of railway management that the selling and the running of the trains, which is called "operating", must be closely welded together, and it is a peculiar thing to do, to give one of these to one organisation and the other to another organisation. I do not say that it will not, or cannot, work well. Almost anything can be made to work, and if the two heads of these organisations work closely together in the interests of the customers perhaps it will work. But I suggest that a good organisation ought to rest on a surer foundation.

37
In general Part I of the Bill strikes me as being exceedingly complicated. I think your Lordships will agree that good organisation is invariably characterised by simplicity. Here we find corporations, councils, companies, boards and groups tumbling over each other until one's head aches in an effort to sort out who does what.
To turn to Part II, with its area authorities, its executives and its companies, at least here we are not given the situation where one organisation runs the buses and another collects the tickets. The basic idea that a local authority should devise a transport plan and, moreover, finance it, if it does not prove to be a paying proposition, I have always thought to be theoretically a perfectly sound idea, but it will not be easy for it to be worked out in practice. This point has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I have much sympathy with what he said. These Transport Authorities will be composed of a variety of men and women, coming from a number of urban and rural councils and other places—incidentally, they will be men and women of different political complexions, each with his own canoe to paddle, and they will be asked to agree on a transport plan and how to pay for it. I foresee difficulties, and I am not surprised that the Minister has taken several pages of this Bill to endow himself with authority to sort out the tangles.
There was some criticism—and I do not disagree with it—of the amount of authority which the Minister has reserved for himself, although in this particular instance I think he will need all the authority he has taken. The scheme involves the formation of the National Bus Corporation, to which are to go the former companies of B.E.T., of Tillings—which was a nationalised group—and of the municipalities. Personally I am rather sorry that the B.E.T. bus companies are disappearing. I do not quarrel with the idea of more strongly coordinating the management of all the bus companies, but those B.E.T. companies, working alongside the Tillings group companies, gave an example of how nationalised organisations and private enterprise organisations can work side by side in perfect harmony, and the general public will not know which
38
is which. I am sorry to see thorn go, but I think the directors of the B.E.T. companies will probably get over their chagrin. I myself have no great faith in the future of the bus industry, and I daresay they will find consolation.
It is now time to wind up my speech. I wish to make three final points. First, this is an untidy Bill— and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has almost: said so —and it has been inadequately debated in another place. I am sure that the Government would incur resentment in the country if they tried to prevent this Bill from being properly debated in this Chamber, and I do not believe they will. When I had responsibility for the railways I used to say, "There is one thing, gentlemen, we are not short of, and that is advice". We in this House are not short of advice as to where our duty lies and what we should do abut it. My own reaction is always to do exactly the opposite of what I am told, but one must not be guided too much by one's feelings. I strongly support the second Reading of this Bill, and I shall do my best to make a contribution at the Committee stage.
My second point is addressed to noble Lords opposite, and I hope that it will not be taken amiss. In another place, during the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, the spokesman for the Conservative Party used words to the following effect—I am not quoting them exactly: "This Party will, at the earliest opportunity, see to it that the Bill is radically tackled, amended and repealed". Well, my Lords, if we are going on like that we shall never get a good transport organisation. If, every time there is a change of Government, the cards are to be chucked in the air and we start again, how can we expect the officers and men in the industry to respect the politicians under whom they serve, or to have any enthusiasm for their own job? I seriously commend that point to noble Lords opposite.
Finally, I want to refer to a point which has been mentioned with al parent approval both by the noble Lord Lord Shepherd, and by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent; indeed, I am not sure that it was not also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I refer to the recent decision of the Prices and Incomes Board

39
which has largely disallowed—or recommended that it should be disallowed—the application made by British Railways for higher charges. When I read that in the newspapers I said, "There we are again, the usual old story. It is politically inconvenient that the charges shall go up, so the railways must be told that they are inefficient, and that if they were efficient they would not need to put up their prices".
I hope that whoever replies to this debate for the Government will have something to say on this point. Will he tell us when this application was submitted and when the Government expect to give their final answer to British Rail? I can tell the Government that this Bill now before us will be a complete waste of time and paper, and will not achieve its object of giving financial stability to the railways, if, when their costs go up and up, they are to be refused their requests for higher charges, or are to have those requests delayed over great lengths of time.
4.20 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I speak as someone who has had reasonable experience of bus driving. Until last November, I was for over six years a conductor and driver for a bus company that is attached to the Tillings Group—that is part of Transport Holdings—in that busy town of Brighton. Even though this is my maiden speech and this Bill is regarded as extremely controversial, I felt it worth while to give your Lordships a short insight into a driver's life and conditions in the way that they will be affected by this Bill.
I would draw your Lordships' immediate attention to Clause 95, Part VI. I am sorry to disappoint the Minister in not sharing his confident view that this House would welcome this provision, because I feel it is not yet ripe. The purport of this clause is to cut down drivers' hours in order to lessen fatigue. It is fair to say that long hours are worked in many places at present, but I am afraid that cutting the maximum working week of a driver from 77 hours to 60 hours and the maximum working day from 11 hours to 10 hours, will only add to the many problems facing the bus industry to-day, principally because it will hit the earning
40
capacity of an already grossly understaffed industry. As was quoted in another place, the Association of Chambers of Commerce have pointed out that the manning of public service vehicles up and down the country is deficient by between 10 and 15 per cent. Thus, by cutting the hours this figure will be considerably higher and more scheduled services will be cut unless radical measures are produced for improving the wages and conditions of busmen.
I feel it is now necessary to give the main reasons why bus work is so unpopular. First, the working of erratic hours, week-ends and bank holidays, plus the staggering of summer holidays from March to October, tends to lead to dissension in the home and to disrupt family life. Secondly, there are very few and not very attractive promotion prospects. Thirdly, except in the case of municipal busmen, the sick-pay scheme is inadequate and has to be augmented privately by beloging to sick clubs, there being in most cases no retirement pension.
The persons who work on buses can also be classified into three groups. In the first group there is the man who joined his company before the war, when bus work was of prestige status and did not have the stigma attached to it which it has to-day. Then there is the man who uses his firm purely as a matter of convenience by just working the bare hours, and has some part-time job as well. Finally, there is the largest group of all, the one that contains the man who does a lot of overtime and usually remains only until he has achieved his goal, whatever it may be, like putting a deposit down on a house or buying a motor car.
The basic top rate of a provincial bus driver, of which I was one, for a 40-hour six-day week is still a measly £12 14s. 10d., but I gather a new scheme is afoot. This amount is abysmally small considering the fact that he has to manipulate between 8 and 12 tons in weight and be responsible for the safety of possibly 70 or so souls through the busy traffic. The ideal bus driver needs to have the concentration of a racing driver, the smoothness of an ambulance driver, the aggressiveness of a tank driver, the dexterity of a taxi driver, the mind-reading faculty of an autioneer—that is, in ability to guess request stops and understand erratic

41
bell signals—the physical endurance of a lorry driver, and finally the patience of a saint. Yet bus drivers are regarded as unskilled labour. I agree that a man should not have to work all the hours in the world to have a proper standard of living, but with expenditure going up daily it is necessary. I myself used to work very long hours some weeks and work most of my days off.
Before I close I must mention one more important fact about the bus industry, and that is about accidents. Accidents, in my view, are not caused mainly by fatigue so much as by lack of experience on the part of the younger element—and I was one. I feel sure insurance companies would agreed. A man is regarded as much safer when he reaches the age of 40. In summing up, I can only repeat what I have already said. The bus industry must continue to reform the wage scale and working conditions before the hours can be cut down successfully. I shall always look back on my "bussing" days with affection and regard my colleagues as the most congenial, cheerful and uninhibited bunch of chaps that I have ever been privileged to work with.
4.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, it is my pleasant task to congratulate, on his contribution to our debate, the noble Lord who has just sat down. We wish especially to do this to-day because, if I may venture to say so to him, it is perhaps no bad thing, in debating this vast Bill, for some noble Lord to come along and make it plain to us that it is about people. It is about bus drivers and lorry drivers; it is about real people—something I want to return to in a moment. I am sure we all congratulate him most sincerely on bringing this pleasant breath of reality to our proceedings; we hope we shall hear him often, and we shall listen with great interest when he speaks again.
My Lords, I think I should disclose an interest because certainly the companies with which I am associated will have their costs adversely affected by this measure. I imagine I am in good company because I cannot think of any large undertaking, including the railways, in my view, which will not be adversely affected by this measure in one way or another. Speaking as a previous Minister
42
of Transport, I am not in any degree trying to oppose the general preposition that in this rapidly changing world one has to legislate in this area from time to time. I am pretty sure that the present Government found plenty of pigeonholes full of draft legislation. It is always the case at the Ministry of Transport. There was the Geddes Report and there was the Steering Group which this Government set up, but I think a lot of their work had been done previously. There were no doubt a number of matters to be dealt with; I do not think we need question that. But whether it was wise to draw all this vast mass of amendments into one Bill is another matter.
The trouble is that even as an ex-Minister of Transport who has laboured at a Transport Bill himself, however charitable one may seek to be to this measure one cannot overlook the nature of it. It is an ill-conceived Bill, a product of a Ministry that I fear at the moment is almost overwhelmed with protests and problems of one kind and another. I quite understand that the noble Lord, the Minister who opened this debate, Lord Shepherd, cannot be with us, but I am afraid he will have to accept that there are certain things that he said to which I must refer. I hope he will at least bother to read them.
The Minister sought to be very conciliatory; and so he should. As the noble Lord has just reminded us, and as I hope I and my advisers tried to remember in my day at the Ministry of Transport, any legislation about transport affects almost everybody in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said this, too. Clearly, I think, in this measure very little account has been taken of the effect it will have and the problems it will create for almost every individual in these islands. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, if we had had more chance in this House, even if there is not time in the other place, to debate some of the White Papers, some of the proposals, this might have been a very much more practical measure. I noticed that the noble Lord was anxious to make it plain that this was not practical Socialism. I suppose we must assume that it is impractical Socialism, and with that I entirely agree.

43
I am rather sad that this Bill, which could have been a workmanlike and possibly useful measure of perhaps a relatively minor nature, has become an omnibus of ill-conceived and badly digested proposals quite unrelated, in my view, to the real needs of the nation at this time. Even so, I think my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford was right to advise your Lordships not to reject this Bill on Second Reading. I think this is on the ground that it does contain much painstaking work by the Ministry's officials related to previous inquiries and so on, and these no doubt we can improve and embody in whatever Bill, in the end, this House decides to give its approval to.
But I want to say most sincerely that I believe it is our duty to examine this Bill with the kind of expert and critical examination which is possible in this place. Here, we have many experts on transport, many people who have borne the heavy and, I think, almost intolerable burden of being asked to be Chairman of a nationalised authority; and many people, like my noble friend Lord Nugent, who have long and expert experience in this field in ministerial office. Therefore, I think it is our job to try to give this Bill the kind of critical examination that it was not given in another place.
I am not going into all the arguments about which guillotine was sharper than another, but the facts are quite plain. This Bill was ill-debated as to its principles; it has been ill-conceived in its construction. It has, then, had little fundamental debate and examination, except in certain specialised areas. I think that we in this House have to try to put that right, however heavy a burden it may be.
I must say that I was a little surprised when the Minister was kind enough to say that he would take some note, and see that the Minister took some note, of what was raised in this House. This seems to me a quite astonishing doctrine. I have always understood that if this House has any purpose at all, it was traditionally a revising Chamber, where people tried to bring what knowledge they had to improving legislation and that sort of thing. I hope that we are not establishing a new principle, under which Ministers will say that it is their
44
decision whether the debates in this House are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister or not. I certainly hope that what we say in this debate and on the Committee stage will be read personally by the Minister, and I hope he will see that all his officials read it and act on it; otherwise I should think that the House might take a quite dim view of the Bill as a whole.
I do not want to delay the House for long. Let me therefore try to give just one or two practical examples of why I venture to say that I think this measure is ill-conceived and does not bear on the right facets of our national life at this time. First, as my noble friend rightly said, there is the really heavy burden of extra costs. I spoke to the Food Manufacturers' Federation. After all, this is a most sensitive area; and perhaps one of the few things on which the Government and, I hope, our side of the House are agreed is that in this sensitive area we do not want to put up prices unnecessarily. We do not want to put too much strain on trade union leaders who are already under heavy enough strain.
I am told (I cannot say whether this is true or not, but it is their best guess) that this Bill will increase the costs of the food industry by no less than £16 million a year. In this industry, which works on quite small margins, there is no hope of absorbing this figure. In the end, it will have to go through into prices, and therefore, in the end, part of the cost of this Bill will have to be paid by the housewives of this country. I should have thought this Government, who so rarely seem to be looking the same way at the same time, would want, for the sake of their prices and incomes proposals, to do all they could to keep food prices down at this time, rather than put them up by their own legislative action.
Another example is to be found in the various clauses which deal with operators' licences. One could go on for a long time on this. For example, why should applications for operators' licences be required in each licensing authority area? If you examine this Part of the Bill, I think you are once again forced to the conclusion that here is a measure that is going to create a vast amount

45
of paper work, vast numbers of applications, vast numbers of hearings, contested applications and all the rest. I can only pose the question: Is this the sort of thing we require in a country that is fighting for its living, that is trying to reduce costs?
Again, in my view this is an example of the Government's saying one thing in one place and doing something quite different in another, because I believe that this Bill will create more form-filling and paper work than any other measure we have had in front of us for a long time. There is also the proposal that, for example, every employer must employ a transport manager at each operating centre. That does not seem to imply much knowledge of how big companies run their affairs.
I should like now to turn to what I think is the most objectionable part of the Bill; that is, the proposal for the control by licence of the operation of large goods vehicles. If I may venture to say so, we all like the Minister a great deal in this House. He can almost "get away with murder", but I do not think he can get away with this. He said that the provisions of this clause would not be implemented unless the railways (and I think I quote him correctly) were able to give a more efficient and cheaper service. If that is so, why do you want the requirement? My company is a large user of these new fast freight services. So are many other large companies. Why? After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said, this is the one real break-through that the railways have had. It is a first-class service. Why one should take it away from them, I do not know. But certainly, coming to this clause, where that service is more efficient they get the business. Therefore, why have this method, by hearings and licences and control, of trying to create the maximum enmity between the railways and their customers?— because that is what is going to happen.
I think I am right in saying that it is still in the Bill that licences, even after they have been granted, are to be revokable at the request of the licensing authority. This is a most dangerous and damaging provision. If a licence, once granted, can be revoked at the whim of a licensing authority, it will make it quite impossible for large businesses or large
46
users of transport to plan for the future at all. My Lords, I hope that I have said enough at this stage to show that possibly what was a good and useful measure has been subverted to purposes of doctrinaire Socialism. In this we are only quoting the Minister who brought it before another place. Thus, instead of something which might have made a contribution to more efficient transport, it is something which I think will put us all back a number of years in general transport policy. The good parts of the Bill will be entirely lost and destroyed by the bad.
I do not think this is the moment to give any more examples. I must say that I remain fearful about this statement of the discipline of "breaking even" on the railways. This is something we have always hoped for but never yet achieved. I do not believe that the chances will be improved by some kind of forced movement of goods from road to rail or from rail to road. If these things cannot take place in the normal commercial practice of efficiency, of cost cutting and so on, then I do not think they will take place at all, whether you legislate for it or whether you do not.
The last thing I want to say is this. I think that one has a right to say it. There are those of us—I think they represent the majority of our nation—who try to listen when the Government say to us, "Export more; be more productive; work harder", and all these things which it is quite proper that the Government should say. In my view, it is quite proper that we should listen, on one condition: that the Government do not then in other spheres produce legislation, and therefore promote proposals, which are inimical to this doctrine. I believe that this Bill is thoroughly inimical to the doctrine of trying to get a more efficient and more productive nation. Perhaps if the Government are willing to listen and to accept major Amendments in this House—and I sincerely hope they are—we may send back to another place a reasonably workable Bill that would make a contribution But if we cannot, then I really think that those of us who strive hard in export and other fields to do something for our country have a right to say about this measure, "Well, it just does not make any sense to us at all".
4.39 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, as the first speaker from this part of the House to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I should like warmly to congratulate him on his maiden speech. As the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, has said, it is a great asset in this House that we have many noble Lords who have practical experience through working in the actual industry or in connection with the subject under discussion. The noble Lord has shown by his experience that there are problems involved and, if I may say so, I think he has made a most useful contribution to the debate.
Many speakers in this debate have talked about the length of this Bill. Of course it is a long Bill. It is a most important Bill—one which is to co-ordinate all the transport services of the country. In many ways it is almost the same length as the London Government Bill, which was brought in by the Conservative Government in 1963, just five years ago. I realise that the present Bill has rather more clauses; but if one looks at the pagination, which is really the only way of comparing the two, in fact this Bill is only 12 pages longer, which in 268 pages, is not really very much longer. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd will remember, we sat up many a long night on the London Government Bill, and no doubt we shall sit up many a long night on this Bill if there is a very long Committee stage.
Another theme that has run all through this debate is that previous speakers have referred to the remarks of the former Minister, Mrs. Castle, in the other place in the debate on December 20, when she said, "This is Socialism". Therefore, I thought that I might, with the permission of the House, read the very short passage in which Mrs. Castle made this remark. I think it is always a tradition of Parliament that when a remark is quoted it should be quoted in its full context. The Minister said that running through the Bill there was one unifying theme—
"what I would call 'practical Socialism'. As a Socialist, I believe that transport is a vital service to industry and to our people and that, if economic planning or the physical planning of our environment is to make any sense at all, transport planning must form part of it. In the same way, transport services must be planned in relation to each other—not allowed to go their own sweet
48
way regardless of consequences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 1281.]
My Lords, if this is Socialism it is also common sense. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that it would be a tragedy for this country if transport were made the plaything of Party politics, and I endorse absolutely the noble Lord's point that we should do our best to improve the Bill—and that, after all, is the right of the Opposition—and then we should accept it and try to make it work. I believe that it has much merit in it.
This is a long Bill, and there are a great many speakers to follow me, and I do not wish to detain the House for very long. But I should like to deal with two sections of it, with both of which I agree. I may say that I do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, said about Clause 5, which is the transfer of the freightliner company. I welcome the fact that this freightliner company will be a subsidiary of the National Freight Corporation, although of course the Railways Board will continue to have a share in this. It seems to me to make for much better co-ordination that the N.F.C. should be responsible for the terminals, the vehicles, and the containers, while the Railways Board should be responsible for providing the wagons. That seems to me to be good, common, practical sense, and I reject absolutely the policy of the Opposition that road and rail should be run independently of each other and in competition. Also, my Lords, to my mind it would be a great advantage, as one who has some experience of marketing, that the marketing side of this very exciting project, with its tremendous possibilities, should come under one management rather than under two as at present. Of course, the railways will continue to have a major stake in the success of freightliners, and indeed they will share in the profits of the freightliner company.
Then there is the question of quality licensing, under Part V. I welcome the proposed exemption from carrier licensing of all vehicles under 30 cwt., thus releasing 900,000, almost one million vehicles, from licensing in this way. It seems to me right that in future these should be treated like private cars and be subject to the same annual tests and

49
the same roadside spot checks, but not to be treated as heavy lorries. I agree that the quality licence system should apply only to the 600,000 heavier goods vehicles.
Another reason which has not so far been referred to in this debate is the accident rate. I understand that the number of deaths from accidents is 40 per cent. higher per vehicle mile for the heavier vehicles than for the lorries of 30 cwt. and under.
My Lords, I should also like to touch briefly on the other part of Part V dealing with quantity licensing. I think there is one thing on which both the other side of the House and this side of the House can agree, and that is that rail freight has been declining and that road transport has been increasing. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made great play with the matter of quantity licensing. He said that all freight—at least (I must be fair) not all freight, but freight—would be forced off the roads; that the Government were throwing a spanner into the works; they were stopping managers using their commercial judgment, and that this was a case of fair shares of grief for all. What is this really all about?—because I do say, with respect to the Opposition, and also to what has been said outside this House, in the Press in many parts of the country, that a great many people have got the Government wrong on this. I do not think they have read the Bill or studied it properly, and I do not think they realise its implications.
In terms of ton-miles, the percentage share of road transport has been rising. It rose from 55 per cent. in 1962 to 61 per cent. in 1966. The rail percentage declined from 26 per cent. to 22 per cent. As the White Paper said, this is largely due to the growth in activities of large users of road transport and also to the decline in coal traffic. It has been estimated that by 1975, with these new freightliners, goods amounting to some 4,500 million ton-miles, mainly of long hauls over 100 miles, could go by rail instead of by road. This would allow the rail ton-mileage to rise by 12 per cent., but the rail share of the total ton-mileage would remain at 22 per cent. in 1975, as it was in 1966. On the other hand, the road transport share of the total ton-mileage would rise to 65 per
50
cent. in 1975 from 61 per cent. in 1966. Due to the growth in total transport demand, the total ton-mileage by road for journeys of over 100 miles would still be rather higher in 1975 than in 1966.
In other words, my Lords, as the total demand for transport rises, all the Bill is doing is transferring 10 per cent. from road transport to rail, hut that will allow a one-third increase in the tonnage carried by the railways. So it is not a question of forcing all the freight off the roads, as the Opposition spokesman said. It is not a question of that at all; it is a question of diverting a small percentage from one sector to the other, and in actual fact the use of road transport will go up as the overall demands and the percentage of the road transport is increased.
The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, talked about the railways. I would approach it in this way: that it is really a question of the chicken and the egg, and which comes first. We have the railways; we have got to make them pay. We cannot make them pay unless we give them some work to do and unless we see that they have a high proportion of our freight. Otherwise what are we going to do? We could close them down and let them rust or we could treat them just as historic monuments. This Bill is an attempt to divert a small percentage, to start with, of freight on to the railways to make them pay; and then, whet the freightliner system comes in, to control the question of heavy loads. We are a small, highly populated country, and our roads are becoming more and more congested. From the national point of view any comparison between road and rail should surely take into account the accident rate, the frustrations and delays caused to other road users by the wrong use of the roads, and also the necessity to make the railways economically viable. There is also the question of thefts and security, though this is a somewhat smaller matter. There is far less risk of thefts on a big scale, and we all know the risks run by many drivers with loads being hi-jacked on the road.
LORD W1NDLESHAM: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten the Great Train Robbery?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, working in television and films, would raise that

51
matter. I had not forgotten it. That, of course, was a very special case indeed. The noble Lord is surely not going to try to convince the House that, because there was a robbery of a train stuffed full with banknotes, the same thing is going to happen with the heavy loads which it would be very difficult to carry away.
I welcome Clause 74, in relation to decisions on applications for special authorisations. This clause allows the licensing authority to overrule the objection if the provisions for rail carriage are less advantageous, taking into account (and these were the words used by my noble friend the Minister) "speed, reliability and cost". This was made quite clear in paragraph 57 of the White Paper, which said:
"…the test will, therefore, be on an economic basis. It is clearly not the Government's intention that the licensing system should be capable of being used as a means of diverting traffic to rail uneconomically."
It is clear that the relevant order will not be brought into force until the freightliner service has been sufficiently developed. This was confirmed by the former Minister, Mrs. Castle, in another place in the debate on Second Reading on December 20, in column 1287. I always try to understand the Opposition, and I respect them; but I cannot understand why they have got so worked up about this particular clause, since it is quite clear that this scheme will not be brought in until there is an adequate alternative in the freightliner service.
I have studied the Opposition arguments, and it seems to me that their view is that the whole matter of transport, vis-à-vis rail and road, in this country can be resolved by a laissez-faire policy of allowing the ordinary forces of competition to play their part in determining the role that road and rail should play —in other words, to run the two in rivalry as if they were a couple of small removal firms. I submit that this is short-sighted, unimaginative, and wasteful of our national services. I utterly reject this viewpoint, and I strongly support the Bill.
4.54 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, aware as I am of the custom in your Lordships' House I can promise
52
brevity. As for controversy, should I err I trust that I may have the consideration and indulgence which your Lordships usually extend to those who speak for the first time.
I should first like to make it clear that I have spent my life in the motor industry and so have a particular interest in certain sections of the Bill. However, I wish to confine my remarks to two aspects, one of which is not particularly connected with the industry, namely, the question of the proposed transport manager's licence. Frankly, I do not believe that the introduction of such a licence holder, however well qualified, is likely to improve the operation or maintenance of commercial, or indeed private, car fleets. I have always held the view that, whatever kind of qualification an employee may have in a firm or in a fleet, in the last analysis it is the attitude of mind of the owner—possibly also budgetary considerations—which determines the efficiency, safety and suitability of a vehicle for a particular task. There is little doubt in my mind that with the stepping up of roadside tests, with the introduction of annual testing and other regulations now in force or shortly to come into force, the general level of safety efficiency of commercial vehicles will be greatly improved. Yet there is still in the Bill this proviso for some qualified transport manager to have a licence to operate. I fail to see how, particularly with regard to smaller fleets, this will necessarily improve efficiency within sensible cost limits.
I should like now to turn to the motor industry. I should make it quite clear that I have an interest in this respect since I derive my livelihood from this industry. I do not believe that it is desirable for public monies to be invested in an industry where there is such severe risk and where there is such fierce and keen competition. Neither do I believe that it is desirable for the retail side of the industry to be subjected to the radical changes which I can foresee in the existing franchise system should the Boards or authorities become involved in the direct selling of motor vehicles and perhaps in the sale of petrol and spares, and the sphere also of repairs and servicing.

53
Although vehicle selling is not a highly specialised kind of occupation, I certainly believe that the relationship set between manufacturer and the dealer network, which is now undergoing considerable reorganisation and streamlining, is one that serves the user best because the manufacturer provides by way of training courses, advice, and so on, a kind of background which makes the sale of the vehicle a sensible proposition. If the State were to engage in the selling of motor vehicles, this could seriously upset the balance in the domestic market. This, in turn, could have an adverse effect on the export market.
The sphere of petrol selling, coupled with those items which are associated with petrol stations, I can assure the House is not an automatic profit-making business. There are some 36,000 outlets already selling petrol in the country and the motor trades' own Association have already established that certainly a third of them are not profitable in any shape or form. Indeed, the average throughput is less than 100,000 gallons per annum. Those of us who are engaged in this side of the motor industry know full well that a gallonage of at least double that figure is necessary to make a profitable proposition.
The principal suppliers of motor fuel have already indicated in their long-range planning that the smaller outlet will not be profitable. It will be necessary to have stations where something like 250,000 gallons are to be sold, so reducing the costs of storage, operation, transport and so on. With that kind of background, I cannot see how a provincial city railway-yard-cum-car-park can make a great contribution to the service which most users of petrol are expecting.
Lastly, on the proposal that various boards and authorities may engage in the repair and servicing of all kinds of vehicles for people other than themselves, I assure your Lordships, having spent a great number of years being responsible for the repair and servicing of all kinds of vehicles, that the capital involvement here is very considerable. It is also very specialist. Indeed, most manufacturers are channelling their particular make of vehicle to a certain dealer or dealer organisation, where there is not only the particular
54
machinery required but also the particular staff. There is a considerable shortage of skilled staff, and only some 300,000 people are employed in the repair industry.
I feel that if the various boards and authorities engage in this sort of activity, they can at best provide the kind of service which is mostly criticised in the national Press and by users and which is supplied by a non-franchise dealer who does not have the specialist tools or the specialist knowledge. That kind of dealer has a totally different role to play. I think that a State employer in the field of motor vehicle repair as is generally accepted would create a serious imbalance so far as labour availability was concerned.
May I conclude by suggesting to your Lordships that for very many reasons, some of which have already been outlined by previous speakers aid some few of which I have attempted to outline this afternoon, the provisions in the Bill for this kind of activity just do not make very good sense. Also I do not think they can be considered essentially desirable in the interests of the national well-being, of road transport or of the industry which supplies and services road transport.
5.4 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, we have listened with the greatest interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and both he and the noble Lord. Lord Teviot, have made maiden speeches this afternoon on which I am sure they will receive wide congratulations from all parts of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, showed clearly in his speech that he follows his late father's keen interest in all things to do with transport. He referred most interestingly and with great balance and impartiality to some of the difficulties which may arise under Clause 48 of the Bill. Many of your Lordships will remember the noble Lord's father as a Lord-in-Waiting under the Labour Government before 1950, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and latterly, when I remember him, sitting on the Cross-Benches. It so happens, just by luck, that I knew the late Lord Lucas, because I was a boy at school in the village in which he lived. I believe I

55
am right in saying that the present noble Lord lives in that village now, and I am grateful to him for bringing back some happy memories to me in the middle of the rigours of the Transport Bill. What more can anyone ask, following a maiden speaker, than to have at least a little help in being put at one's ease? So it is with the very greatest warmth that I congratulate the noble Lord on his speech, and I hope that we may hear him again very soon.
I take very much to heart the words of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who said that it is no good one Government following another and throwing the legislative cards in the air, so may I draw your Lordships' attention to just a few points connected with road haulage? The enormous increase of traffic to-day should make road safety common ground for all. It is true that paragraph 43 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 3470) points the finger at heavy traffic as causing the majority of fatal accidents. But statistics submitted by Mr. Peter Doig in the Standing Committee in another place showed that light vehicles cause the majority of other accidents. None the less, the Government are proposing to introduce operators' licences—that is, quality licensing—for greater road safety. To find an effective system, the White Paper recommended exemption of vehicles under 30 cwt., including "light delivery vans and tradesmen's vehicles".
I know there is gratitude on this side of the House for the flexibility of Government Amendments in another place, which have exempted vehicles under 3½ tons plated weight and, as a fall-back, under 30 cwt., and trailers of no more than one ton. But in all fairness there will still be anomalies. Some refrigerated vans will possibly be caught and also—and we all know that the farming fraternity are worried about this—certain dual-purpose vehicles. So in the spirit of the aims of the White Paper, perhaps I may ask the Government to consider raising the dividing line of unladen weight for operators' licences at least to two tons.
May I add a word or two to those spoken by the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, and beg the Government to consider simplifying somewhat the granting of quality licences? The Bill as
56
drawn will still involve licensing authorities and applicants in particulars of demand for haulage, and in the financial resources of an applicant. Surely neither of those conditions need apply, at any rate to an "own-account" operator, and I should be interested to know what bearing notification of
"any change…in the persons holding shares in the company"
can really have on the holding of an operator's licence. And yet, amidst this considerable detail, Clause 64(3) does not allow for the licensing authority to give reasons for refusing an operator's licence, which is important in view of the increased numbers of bodies who are going to be able to make objections under Clause 63.
One condition of a quality licence is the appointment of a transport manager. I hope I do not seem to depart too much from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, when I tell your Lordships that a few weeks ago the transport organiser of a large firm of East Anglian agricultural engineers told me that the concept of transport managers in this Bill is, in his opinion, one of the best things that the Government have attempted in this field. But perhaps I shall move a little closer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, by reminding noble Lords opposite that there is opposition to the requirement that an operator with only one or two vehicles should hold this licence, which for such a person might be argued as a bogus qualification. The White Paper, Schedule 9 and the Minister have made it clear that in future a test will be instituted for transport managers. But what is the small farmer or jobbing builder to be expected to know for this? On Report in another place the Minister said that there will be "varying qualifications for various people", and yet it is surely fair to point out that the penalties will be the same for all transport managers—and they are very searching penalties indeed. This Bill must ensure that it brings home to the point of real responsibility any contravention of the law; and perhaps the noble Lord winding up could say a little more on whether there could not be some relaxation of the responsibility of operators and transport managers under Clause 69.
However the noble Lord may reply, it is obvious—it is common ground, probably—that a transport manager's position

57
will be one of very serious importance. In another place the Minister has suggested that the small operator could shelve his responsibility by nominating a local garage as his transport manager. This is obviously unacceptable, as a garage will prepare a vehicle for the road, not be made answerable at law for the management of vehicles and the conduct of drivers. The Government have shown considerable flexibility over quality licensing: will they still not consider exempting from the appointment of a transport manager's licence an operator with, say, under three lorries, provided of course that the safety condition of notifying the place of maintenance to the licensing authority is observed? Such an Amendment would give the real transport manager the status that his responsibilities will require, and this new concept could start off with a far wider range of acceptance.
One matter in the field of general interest came up during the Committee stage in another place when Mr. Manuel referred to the lack of garage accommodation in housing estates where heavy lorries are parked overnight. In a new council housing estate near my home there is no garage accommodation of any kind whatsoever. This policy disfigures a neighbourhood and is a constant danger to pedestrians, particularly children playing in the street. I beg that Government advice and help may persuade local authorities to spend more money on garaging in future. In 1964—and I make no Party point on this—the Conservative Government gave an undertaking that revenue from parking meters should go only towards the provision of off-street parking facilities, and I am sorry that this is a policy which Clause 123 seeks to vary.
From Clause 71 onwards, in Part V, there are the provisions for special authorisations; the new quantity licensing. I cannot see this licensing helping road congestion very much, or relieving the roads, which was the expression which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, used. Two familiar arguments, perhaps, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, bear repeating. First, there will be widespread use of lorries under 16 tons plated weight doubling up on heavier lorries to escape Clause 71; and as most freight depots are sited
58
in towns, urgent forward planning is going to be needed. My own railway station at Ipswich has loading depots linked to the main lines by a level crossing over a main road—which, incidentally, leads to the passenger station—that is still operated by hand controlled gates. It is true that the Government have speeded the procedure for an unopposed licence; that a quick grant can be obtained now in "urgency"; and that a controlled journey, it has been made clear, can cover a multitude of journeys as a pattern. Yet, understandably, grave apprehensions remain; and for disputed services, of course, the procedure is almost akin to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
But perhaps most serious of all, the Bill threatens, for journeys which are not part of a pattern, to forbid the granting of "backloads" So it was that attempts were made in another place to gain exemption for the haulage of fish, horticultural and perishable goods, milk and flour, timber and precision instruments. Pleas were made in respect of goods destined for a coastal vessel, goods carried by people on their own account, and for the carriage of toxic wastes and sewage. Against all of these, the Government hardened their heart. An attempt, at first successful, was made to exempt Devon, Cornwall and the development areas, where hauliers, invariably faced with journeys in excess of 100 miles, will be required, like some ghastly repetitive child, to ask the same question over and over again of the licensing authorities. To all these pleas the Minister of State replied:
"It appears to us that…it is right that there should be exemption. On the other hand it appears to us wrong to write these exemptions into the Statute"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Standing Committee F, col. 2483.]
Surely the Government should at least indicate the criteria, apart from speed, reliability and cost, for exemptions. They have chosen, I admit, livestock. Furniture is also chosen, but it is not the only load which is tricky to pack, and Mr. Stephen Swingler himself suggested that packaging and insurance should be considered by licensing authorities. Surely the third Government exemption, that of oft-shore islands, could be widened to a specified distance from a freight depot. The Minister himself has mentioned disadvantages inherent in a rigid train timetable. As

59
many noble Lords far better qualified than I could tell the House, transport is an arm, but a vital arm, of industry; and if blood to that arm is cut off for about three weeks while an opposed application is decided, a production line may simply die. If the single word "flexibility" were made a criterion, this would help enormously, as would frequency of delivery, risk of damage and contamination and the suitability of a load.
I quite realise that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may say that all these things have been mentioned in Committee in another place and can be dealt with by regulations. Noble Lords will recall that in the Resale Prices Act Section 5 (2) provides criteria for applications for exemptions. I should have thought that this was a reasonable example from which to argue, since applications for quantity licences, despite what some noble Lords have said, will be serious matters, involving a five-year licence for a successful applicant and a valuable precedent for an objection sustained. If criteria could be added to speed, reliability and cost, this might mollify the widespread opposition which exists to quantity licensing. But if the Government refuse to move further in this direction, may I follow the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and say that I hope that when the time comes noble Lords will vote to delete Clause 71, and all clauses consequential upon it, from this Bill.
Although it is not yet clear whether extra costs can be met by increased productivity, and particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, Government Amendments in another place to reduce drivers' hours to ten hours and not nine, and to allow for exemptions "in cases of emergency" or "in exceptional circumstances" are welcome, but once again it would be most helpful if some indication could be given of possible exemptions. There remains genuine anxiety about how dairymen, the construction industry, some firms' representatives and vets, to give only four examples, will be affected; and once again, my Lords, journeys from the remoter parts of the British Isles will be hit very hard indeed.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, three particular questions? Could not the time of no more than four
60
hours at the wheel, which gives exemption, be raised just a little? This might help farmers at harvest time. Secondly, bearing in mind the considerable waiting time in queues which many lorry drivers have to endure, could not half an hour be added to the proposed l2½-hour working day? Thirdly, could not drivers' hours be brought into line with quality licensing by exempting vehicles of under 30 cwt.? Such vehicles will not be required, I believe, to be fitted with tachographs; enforcement will be difficult, and the law may in this respect simply be brought into disrepute.
Lastly, my Lords, in company with many other noble Lords, I am appalled by the size of this Bill. There was never any hope of full discussion in another place—and this was ensured, in many ways, by the inclusion of some clauses almost subjects of their own—and the tragedy, I think, is that the very length of this Bill has masked (and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent referred to this) so much that is good. But with the best will in the world I can find little to admire in Clause 48. In another place, an Amendment was drafted to require the boards and the new authorities to show that they could manufacture or repair more cheaply or more quickly, or to a higher standard, than their competitors. The judge of these alternatives was to be the Minister and if permission was given the board concerned must operate as a commercial organisation. Finally, the Amendment sought to restrict the boards to activities associated with that industry's primary purpose.
What answer did the Amendment receive? The Minister herself (it was still Mrs. Barbara Castle) denied the possibility of forecasting the cost, delivery time or standards of any article before going into production and denied the possibility of the rest of the Amendment, with the exception that activities referred to in Clause 48 should be pursued on a commercial basis. But when the Minister was asked what was intended by the phrase "as a commercial organisation", the replies became almost meaningless.
So again may I ask what separate accounting is planned for the activities started under Clause 48? Will annual financial targets be given to these commercial organisations? The previous

61
Minister said in Standing Committee (col. 1950):
"We cannot tie them to making a profit in a statutory form."
What is a statutory profit? What is the form in which it cannot be made? And perhaps, in principle, the most important question of all is this. Will these "commercial organisations" pay selective employment tax? The boards are being given powers to enter into many fields where their private enterprise competitors cannot by any stretch of the imagination avoid selective employment tax. This question, therefore, will require an answer. The right honourable lady, Mrs. Barbara Castle, has said of Clause 48:
"This is not unfair competition, it is equality of opportunity."
Yet the previous Minister admitted that the expression "commercial organisations" has no legal definition and that what mattered was the Minister's intention.
My Lords, if it is the Government's intention to trade on an advantageous commercial basis and so use the taxpayers' money sometimes to squeeze the taxpayers out of business it will be—even if it occurs only sometimes—outrageous. If, in the event, by intention, the Government allow nationalised industries to incur losses by launching into unknown markets, it will be a calamity. But if it is the Government's intention to allow un-fair trading and, at the end of the day, a large bill for the taxpayer to foot, then this is an intention that will not easily be forgotten or forgiven.
5.24 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I find myself sharing a very widespread opinion that many parts of this Bill are good and sound and, indeed, overdue; that other parts of it may not be bad, and that bits of it are sufficiently doubtful to merit at least very close examination. I am also impelled to one general reflection: that my recollections go back a good deal beyond 1962, which seems to be the latest date at which any transport legislation is regarded in this House as relevant by those who have already spoken. I should not think that everything that happened, or did not happen, since 1947 is to be regarded merely as a cautionary tale. I think that a great deal of what was attempted, what was done and what was
62
not done in that period can be very useful if taken into consideration now.
In the forefront of their proposals the Government have, rightly, put their solution of the economic crux of the transport problem, the relationship of the carriage of freight by rail and road. And they have tackled this in a new way. The commercial handling of genera1 merchandise traffic is to be integrated in a new combined organisation which will leave operations by rail to the Railways Board. Past efforts to co-ordinate these two activities have, admittedly, not been effective; although in my time at the British Transport Commission the open conflict between the national1y-owned railways and the nationally-owned road transport undertakings, which Lord Shepherd rightly stigmatised as ridiculous, could not have occurred and in fact would not have been allowed. I sympathise with my noble friend Lord Beeching when he was almost forced into a public controversy with what was essentially part of the same undertaking. That at any rate this new solution will avoid.
I am bound to say also that when I was Chairman of the British Transport Commission, I was unable to discover much enthusiasm for the idea of coordination or integration on the part of the railway managements. Naturally, I could discover still less on the part of the road hauliers. I am hound to add that I cart find none at all among the trade unions on either side. Given longer, perhaps we could have got further. But certainly past experience does not lead me to be critical of this new approach to a problem which hitherto has been proved so intractable. How far integration or even co-ordination can in fact be secured with the remaining private hauliers, I do not know. Without some community, if not identity, of financial interests the achievement of real co-ordination in transport is very difficult. In any case, it is right for the Bill as it proposes, to start with the existing concerns already in national ownership.
My chief reservation about the first Part of the Bill is as to its effect upon the Railways Board itself—for much the same reasons that I think are in the mind of my noble friend Lord Robertson. The Board will lose direct control of a major part of its freight activities, although it will retain an

63
interest and a voice in it. But by Clause 8 the Minister can apparently at any time transfer to the National Freight Corporation from the Railways Board (or in the other direction) any other functions of the Railways Board in connection with the carriage of goods, provided —as it is mercifully provided—that he stops short of transferring all, or substantially all, of its functions. What may then happen, under Clause 20, to the control of much of the railways' local passenger traffic is quite obscure. Nor do I think that the possibly unsettling effects of Clause 45 can altogether be ignored.
I think there are very real questions that arise as to how far the not merely financial viability but the organisational personality of the Railways Board will remain intact. Nevertheless, having said that, here is a new constructive attempt to deal with the very crux of the transport problem. It should be given every chance to succeed. What, my Lords, are the alternatives? It would, I think, be a mistake for the Railways Board itself to provide the road haulage services required to complete the freightliner scheme, and thus, in effect, to become a separate and rival road organisation. The principal task of the Railways Board, if I understand the plan correctly, in addition to concentrating upon the running of their trains as efficiently as possible on the operational side, is on the commercial side to quote the most highly competitive rates they can for train loads or perhaps wagon loads; and in this sense they may retain an important commercial function.
I am assuming, and I was glad to infer from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this new public service of freightliners will be open at the same levels of charge not only to the National Freight Corporation but to all public hauliers and to industrialists; and I hope that I am not too 19th century in my notions in thinking that the rates should be publicly quoted to all prospective customers, though of course subject to change as the Board find it necessary in its discretion. It is, of course, essential that the Railways Board should have an effective voice in the policy and management of the two separate subsidiary companies, the freightliner company and the freight sundries company,
64
to be established under Clause 5 though it is given only a 49 per cent. interest in them. Whether the commercial function of the Railways Board can, or should, go further and deeper than the Bill envisages is a point upon which my noble friend Lord Beeching is far better able to express an opinion than I am.
My Lords, the next major proposal is the creation of regional Passenger Transport Areas and Executives. As far back as the 1930s many experienced transport managers on the municipal side, and some in the private sector also, felt that economy and efficiency would be gained by some consolidation of adjoining local authority passenger transport undertakings into joint boards. But the jealousies and amour propre prevalent among local authorities were too strong for any progress to be made, and there was also in the background the feeling, later so well expressed by Herbert Morrison (as he was then), that joint authorities "tended to be all joint and no authority."
In the Transport Act 1947 an over-elaborate procedure was provided for bringing about regional schemes of the kind now envisaged. The British Transport Commission thought that an important first step would be to acquire, if possible by agreement, a complete interest in the leading private passenger transport undertakings in which, as successors to the old railway companies, we already held a 50 per cent. interest. I was quickly able to negotiate such a transfer with the Tilling Group and the Scottish Motor Transport. The B.E.T. group, in which we also had a 50 per cent. share, were less willing to negotiate, and we were content to leave them as they were, largely for the reasons which I explained to your Lordships when their acquisition by the Transport Holding Company recently came before this House.
As regards regional schemes, my Lords, the Commission were, nevertheless, not altogether inactive, and a good plan for the promising area of the North-East coast was devised, largely with the advice and support of the chairman of the traffic commissioners for the area. But the plan made slow progress and, as I have said, the machinery was very elaborate in numerous stages. The Commission had plenty to do and were not

65
anxious to spend time in combating long-drawn-out opposition to schemes which were likely in the end to prove abortive. We came to the conclusion (and in this I must take my full share of responsibility) that neither the then Minister nor the then Government would be prepared, in the last resort, to push through a scheme against determined opposition from great municipal authorities. Therefore the scheme was not pressed.
In the background, again, there was always the lurking hope that some reform of local government would soon go part of the way. I suppose that the present Government have assessed more correctly than I was able to do the probable attitude of the great municipalities in the four areas likely to be designated for the initial schemes, though I can see many lions in the path. While the arrangements for dealing with local railway passenger traffic, in particular—and no doubt many other points, also—will require close examination when this Part of the Bill reaches the Committee stage, I agree in principle with the aim of securing some reorganisation of public passenger traffic outside London.
I admit, of course, the force of the argument (which no doubt will be pressed at least from one side of the House) that some useful regrouping and amalgamation of municipal and other publicly owned passenger undertakings is likely to result automatically from the long overdue reform of local government areas and that, ideally, this reform ought to come first. This was true 30 or 40 years ago, and it was true 20 years ago; but no moves in this direction took place. Can one now blame the Minister of Transport for getting on with his (or her) policy without all the delay, inseparable from the larger process of the reform of local government?
My Lords, this Part of the Bill will no doubt come in for a good deal of criticism. As has been pointed out in many quarters, there are real risks attendant upon the creation of great passenger undertakings which have ultimate access to the public purse, especially if they are under the control of locally elected representatives. Long ago in New York I believe that the issue used to be put to the voters: "Would you rather have your fares put
66
up or would you like the burden put on the rates?". The answer to that plebiscite was not very difficult to forecast. There are very real risks, but against these risks may perhaps be set the opportunities of knitting transport development and town planning policy more closely together—something of great advantage which we were unable to secure even in London, as my noble friend Lord Latham will no doubt admit, under the Transport Act 1947.
It seems to me, as I have said, that the whole of this Part of the Bill merits further examination. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, might not the Transport Holding Company still have been kept in existence? On the principle that nothing must be left alone, it seems doomed to disappear; or, at least, its fate is left in the, hands of the Minister. Whether the reorganisation of local passenger transport might be effected through this or some other agency may be doubtful, and the dominance of the local authorities in this sphere may be inevitable if the aims of an integrated public policy for transport, town planning and general social well-being are to be attained.
In one respect, however, I feel that the proposals go much further than they need. Interference with the local traffic of the Railways Board, which is very efficiently operated and managed, seems to me to be carried to the extreme. Some financial pooling of receipts, on the lines of arrangements so successfully established between the old London Transport Board and the old main-line railway companies, and close working arrangements with the proposed Passenger Transport Executives seem to me to offer the possibility of a solution which would avoid at least some of the heavy top hamper of machinery, and constant references to the Ministry which the Bill contemplates.
To return for a moment to the problem of freight traffic, it is of course the primary objective of the National Freight Corporation to direct back to the railways some of the merchandise traffic which increasingly encumbers our roads. This aim is powerfully reinforced by the provisions in Part V of the Bill for the closer control of large vehicles for the carriage of goods over long distances. I will say a little more about this important, fundamental and highly controversial proposal

67
in a moment, but may I say first that to my knowledge the scheme of licensing control, introduced for public passenger transport in 1930 by Mr. Herbert Morrison and extended to goods traffic in 1934 by Mr. Oliver Stanley, has worked extremely well. I had much to do with the selection of the original Traffic Commissioners and took keen interest in their work during the formative years. A great debt is due to the ability, devotion and public spirit of this varied team of able men, drawn from many walks of life. Naturally, after nearly forty years the system of licensing needs review, and even if it does not demand, certainly admits of some changes.
I welcome particularly the conclusion that a large number of small vehicles, used mainly in the distributive trades, can be released from the obligation to obtain an operator's licence. But I myself would take a great deal of convincing that the licensing system as a whole ought to disappear. No doubt in Committee there will be many points of detail to raise. On the question of whether in present circumstances it is right to impose some control on long hauls by road, perhaps I may be allowed a personal recollection. When the road-rail controversy was at its height in the early 1930s, it fell to my lot to attempt to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Salter, to preside over a road-rail conference, to which he has referred in a recent book. In argument with me, he said, in his impressive way, that he was prepared to work for profit or for pleasure or for power, but not to waste his time in producing a report designed to get some Minister out of a temporary difficulty and fated then to be pigeon-holed. I replied to the noble Lord, who has been a life-long friend of mine, that I was not in a position to offer him a fee, but I assured him that in my view the job was important and would prove interesting; and that as regards powers all I could say was that I would do my best to induce my Minister to give effect to the noble Lord's recommendations. On that he agreed, and as many of your Lordships will remember he produced a Report which is a constructive, not merely a compromising, classic instance of the reconciliation of opposing interests. If I remember aright his only recommendation which did not in some
68
form or another find its way on to the Statute Book was to the effect that power should be taken to prohibit, if need be, the movement of certain heavy traffics over long distances by road. This was not done.
Again, in 1947 no limiting control was taken, though it was originally contemplated, over any form of C licence, and no power was taken to prohibit or direct particular traffics. I am not questioning the advisability of the decisions taken at that time. No one thirty years ago fore-saw the enormous development in road traffic in present circumstances. But I ask your Lordships whether it is unreasonable to give careful consideration to the restrictive proposals in the present Bill. What view my noble friend Lord Salter will take when this clause is considered in Committee I do not know. I abstained from doing more than giving firm notice that I was going to refer to his Report if I had an opportunity of speaking this afternoon.
I pass to a rather different point. The Bill proposes in various clauses to give many of the organisations in the new setup wide powers of manufacturing and selling. I listened with interest to the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with whose father I used to discuss these problems many years ago. If I may, I would take this opportunity of congratulating him upon his speech. I agree that for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and others these clauses need close scrutiny, but I am bound to say that I think that in the past Parliament has taken what has proved in experience to be an unduly narrow view of the extent to which these powers ought to be conferred and has never looked at them from the point of view of the success of the undertakings themselves, but merely from the point of view of the strength of the different oppositions.
There was bitter fight in 1930—long before nationalisation—about the powers of the London Transport Board to provide facilities for motorists at their suburban stations, facilities which the late Lord Ashfield and Mr. Frank Pick urgently desired. The facilities were denied, with the result that for the want of them people who might have been prepared to park their cars at suburban

69
stations and then proceed by rail refused to do so because they said they could never obtain petrol or services of any kind when they needed them at these stations. The argument that these facilities could and should be provided by private traders simply did not work, because private traders were not able to establish themselves profitably at these points merely to serve people who happened to travel by tube morning and evening. So I feel that in the past these powers have been unduly restricted. Surely all nationalised undertakings should be encouraged to develop their land to the best advantage, which many of them have not been able to do.
On the other hand, on points of detail, why is the Railways Board to be empowered to provide and manage hotels anywhere, even abroad, with the Minister's consent, and in places where accommodation is not required by those using the railway services? Many safeguards, of course, are embodied in these clauses in connection with the new powers, but the amount of staff and supervision required in the Ministry to make them in any way effective is rather frightening, and I am led to wonder whether it would not be wiser to give the Railways Board, the Bus Company, and so forth, powers, but much more narrowly defined, and then leave them greater latitude as to ways in which they exercise them.
Again on points of detail, when your Lordships will reach Clause 139 in Committee I do not know; nor do I know whether I shall be able to attend at that time. But I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply to this debate why the undertakings themselves (and perhaps they are more to blame than the Government), and the Government seem so anxious to disperse their relics and records. So far as records are concerned, I was anxious, when I was Chairman of the British Transport Commission, that all railway and other transport records should be carefully preserved and collected together under the supervision of a competent archivist, whom in fact we appointed. Far too many transport records of interest to historians and economists have been lost, and I took the view that such scholars were entitled to have access to what remains and that these documents gained in significance if they were
70
expertly arranged and collected together. Relics are a rather different matter and more difficult to house, especially if they are the size of locomotives. But apart from their general interest, they should and could be of special interest to young transport men interested in the history and the progress of their profession; and though some machines, and some objects, may properly find their home in the Science Museum, I hope that such relics as have been preserved or collected are not going to be dispersed, sold or given away. The significance of collections is largely lost by dissipation.
May I conclude, my Lords, with a general comment? I listened with great interest to Lord Shepherd's attractive, and, I think it right to say, fair and balanced presentation of his case. But on one point, that there was no extension of central authority, I found him most unconvincing. This Bill, influenced as it must largely be by the existing financial conditions and prospects of the undertakings with which it deals, goes yet further in the direction of weakening, if not destroying, the concept of autonomous public corporations as being the best type of organisation for managing basic public utilities. At every possible turn it goes in the contrary direction of moving effective control and endless supervision over much more than broad public policy into departmental hands. It is futile then to complain about or to blame the Civil Service for the growth of bureaucracy. The Government are, I think, to be congratulated on the realistic way in which they have now dealt with the finance of public transport. Having set the undertakings on their feet, could they not allow them here and there to walk a little further by themselves?
5.52 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, one appreciates tin t his approach to the transport problem is influenced by his vast knowledge and the lifetime that he has put into this public service. We are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord for reviewing the past in the way that he has, and I sincerely hope that the knowledge he has been able to portray to us this afternoon may make some noble Lords think again about their attitude during the remaining stages of this Bill.

71
Undoubtedly, the Bill had a long and arduous passage in the other place: and the storm signals have been erected here this afternoon by the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Watkinson, that it is going to have a long and arduous passage through this Chamber. Therefore I think it is as well that we should emphasise once more what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had to say about its pasage through another place. There were 293 hours of debate in the other Chamber. Yet noble Lords say that there are many aspects of this Bill that have not been adequately discussed. This roust of necessity indicate that what took place in the other place, if not deliberate filibustering that could be brought to order by the Chairman, was deliberate procrastination. When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, indicated that there were 19 hours of debate on one particular clause, those of us with experience in the other place knew exactly what had been taking place. Therefore, I am not affected by any crocodile tears coming from the other side on the fact that various clauses of this Bill have not been adequately discussed. The fault lies with noble Lords opposite and their friends, and the tremendous lobby that has been built up by the Road Haulage Association and many other kindred motoring associations throughout the country. It is as well that we should mention these things and bring them to light.
I was rather concerned when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, use these words: "It is necessary that we should find the right relationship to hold the balance between rail and road". Those words have been used many times by Tory politicians. If we accept what they say is the right balance, well and good, but anything other than that particular line becomes "Socialistic doctrinaire policy". That is just typical.
It is as well to have a look back. I have referred to the wisdom and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. The Act of 1947 which he played a considerable part in drafting (and he ultimately took over the chairmanship of the British Transport Commission) was a Bill that, I think for the first time, attempted to look at transport as a whole. The success of that measure was such that by 1953 the British Transport Commis-
72
sion could not only pay all its working costs and meet all its interest charges, but could, and did, produce a profit. It was from that time onwards, with the advent of the Tory 1951 Act followed by the various measures put forward by Lord Watkinson when he was Minister of Transport, that this huge deficit which the public have had to meet since 1953 has accumulated. It is no use the noble Lord shaking his head; the evidence is there in the 1951 Act and the 1962 Act.
May I refer again to what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, that we should have a fair and even balance. One remembers those Acts that have been placed on the Statute Book and have prevented the publicly-owned undertakings from making a success. One remembers the protests that came in from chambers of trade and chambers of industry in regard to the British Road Haulage, which was created under the 1947 Act, that it was destroying an efficient unit. But it has proved very successful. These are the facts of life. The Tory policy has led to the public having to pay nearly £1,400 million because of the deficit that was created. Then they have the cheek to talk from time to time about wasteful public expenditure! One remembers the vote we had in this House only the other day about a suggestion that we might investigate the question of drug charges. They took the matter to a vote, although it would have meant saving public money. When it comes to their friends, they do not care two straws about public money. I am being very political, and I do not apologise for it.
I welcome most of the provisions of this Bill. I am somewhat critical on the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Government are establishing a separate freightliner company, although the Railways Board is to hold 49 per cent. of the shares. Liner trains have been talked about in recent years as though the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, was responsible for their birth and they were something very revolutionary. The old railway companies in private enterprise days were running these special trains, and the liner trains are not the development of any new idea; they are the development of an old railway idea that took many years to be put into operation. Now they have been

73
eminently successful. One hears of the very great success of electrification of the West main line. The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, and his successor, Mr. Marples, deliberately prevented this electrification from taking place many years previously when the old British Transport Commission were pressing for it. This is evidence—
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but just for the sake of accuracy I would point out that I was not Minister of Transport in the years the noble Lord was talking about, 1951 and 1952, although I certainly supported what my Government did in those clays. When I became Minister of Transport, as I think certain noble Lords here will agree, we provided the finance for the electrification scheme which is now so successful, thank goodness!, on the Midlands Manchester line. I think I raised more money for the railways in my time as Minister of Transport than anybody had done before or has done since. So at least I did something to try to keep them going.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the electrification scheme was developed from Manchester to Crewe and held up from Crewe by Lord Watkinson, and it took nearly seven years after that before it was extended down to London. The East Coast line was mapped under the old British Transport Commission for electrification. They went to all the expense of heightening the bridges to save overhead electrics. Under a Tory Government that scheme was scrapped. These are the type of things that prevented the British Transport Commission, or the British Railways Board, from making their undertaking a profitable one. It is as well to get this on record while we are dealing with this particular Bill, because this has been so important.
Part I, Clauses 1 to 8, of this Bill establishes the National Freight Corporation and lays down the duty that it must integrate road and rail freight services, and secure that goods are carried by rail whenever this is most efficient and economic. That is laid down as a duty. An application is heard from any organisation which wants its goods taken by different methods on these long distance routes of over 100 miles. The evidence is heard by the Traffic Com-
74
missioners and the railways must prove the case that they can do the work more efficiently and economically. It is laid down in the Bill that the Corporation and the Railways Board have to co-operate for this particular purpose. This is the first time since the 1947 Act that legislation lays down the obligation that there must be the utmost co-operation between road and rail services. This is the first time since 1947, again, that an attempt is being made to look upon transport as a whole. Surely these are the right lines to adopt.
One might argue to some extent regarding the details of a particular set-up. I feel rather keenly that the liners ought not to be taken away from the Railways Board. But, having said that, I believe that the virtue behind this idea is the specific policy laid down for the utmost co-operation to take place. The weakness I see in connection with it—and I regret it—is that there is going to be no overall body to ensure that this is done. That is a weakness that I see with regret. There is not a policy body, such as the B.T.C., that could be responsible for ensuring that it is done. I am pleased that the Bill nullifies the National Advisory Transport Council that was set up under the 1962 Act, which provided the pure and simple sop that the Minister was going to supervise. We all knew at that time that it was a "dead duck". I think it might have met once; it might have met twice. This Bill annuls it completely; but I am sorry that there is not going to be any effective overall control on the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and also on the lines indicated by the 1947 Act.
If we are realists about this matter we see that we are to have the National Freight Corporation as a separate entity and various other bodies—I think there will be about seven or eight bodies all dealing with transport—with no overall holding company to take charge. So far as the goods side is concerned I am rather uneasy about the uneconomic runs for goods or freight. What I mean is that we are requiring development in various parts of the country where we have heavy unemployment. We have the regional development boards established, and they tend to concentrate on bringing new industries into a given area. This leaves many acres of the old villages to go derelict. The regional development boards

75
should ensure that some life is still kept in these old villages. If under this distinct and separate set-up transport costs are likely to be higher for meeting these particular needs, there being no overall policy body, I can see that this matter is going to be neglected and it is not going to develop quite along the lines that we should have hoped.
There is another argument in connection with this. I do not like subsidies for transport. I do not think that they are necessary. If we had a financial holding company for the whole of the boards envisaged in the Bill I am sure that the fear that the public would continue to have to be provided with something like the estimate in the Bill, of £50 million for transport social requirements, would be unjustified. I do not think it would be necessary. Cross-subsidisation in transport has always been a feature of transport workings. I know that "cross-subsidisation" became a very dirty word indeed, but transport operates like other industries. A large-scale industrialist may have some parts of his business running unprofitably, but if he produces the components within his own organisation those parts may thereby be made profitable. In the circumstances I am in favour of providing a social service for vast tracts of the country which have been completely cut off from rail services as a result of the actions of the past Tory Government. Only this last Whit-sun weekend I travelled on the Bridlington line that is now to be closed, with its £19,000 worth of track. This is the type of thing which has been encouraged by the Tories in the past.
I do not want to speak at too great length, but I wish just to refer to the bus set-up. The idea of bringing in this type of arrangement for discussing and creating the Passenger Transport Authorities and the Passenger Executives in local areas is a big step forward. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I appreciate that there was a weakness in the 1947 Act. The discussions that took place with the North-East with a view to getting a co-ordinated scheme were not successful. Under the present Bill, power is given to the Minister to bring this about, and all of us who have taken an interest in transport know how necessary it is to link up rural, urban and city services. We know that if we are creating the re-
76
deployment of workers, and asking people to travel some distance to work at a new factory, it is no use pointing out the blessings of the new employment if they have to spend one or two hours changing buses and walking before they get to work. If we get the larger regional authorities —and I know how difficult it will be to break down the petty jealousies of city authorities who have their own transport systems and ask them to take a wider view —it will be a great improvement, and I am sure that this Bill lays down the right lines.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to the vexed question of Clause 40. I welcome this clause as it stands in the Bill. This has been an unpleasant matter that has caused difficulties over a number of years. The old private enterprise railway boards had to establish their railway shops, including the building of the motive-power unit, because of the failure of private enterprise to give them good quality goods. I am sure that in the archives to which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, referred, there are documents which could prove this. The railways built a large number of railway shops—some 36, I believe. That number has been reduced to 16; and, not only that, but much of the work that these railway shops have been doing has been put out to private enterprise. This clause gives the Railways Board power to re-establish the railway shops and ensure that they may be kept competitive, and if there is a slackness in respect of the goods needed for their own use they can go on to the export market and produce the same type of goods. It is right that it should be so. This has been completely prevented in the past, and railwaymen think it ironical to see the work that they have been doing in the railway shops going out to someone else and their shops being closed.
What is wrong with the idea of a publicly owned undertaking producing goods in this way? I know that it cuts across the basic principle of the philosophy of the Opposition in this connection, but if a publicly owned undertaking are faced with a slackness in their particular needs, if they can seek orders from outside in order to keep their staff regularely employed, why should they not be allowed to do it? If private enterprise comes in and takes work from publicly

77
owned undertakings surely there should he a quid pro quo? In my opinion a great many crocodile tears have been shed by the Opposition in this connection.
Quite a lot more could be said in connection with this Bill. I believe that there are about 53 million people in this country, and there are about 53 million experts on transport. I have no doubt that a lot of that expert opinion will emerge in the Committee stage, but I think that during the Committee stage consideration should be given to those clauses that have not been discussed because of the attitude of the other place. I sincerely hope that they will not be examined in the same spirit of filibuster that occurred during the examination of the Bill in another place. Let us get on to the issues, because the Government have decreed that this measure shall get through, the Opposition have accepted it as part of the Party policy, and therefore let us be constructive and not just destructive.
6.17 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there is at least one point on which I find myself in 100 per cent. agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, and that is that there is a great deal more to be said about this Bill. May I first add my sincere congratulations to the noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon, and in particular to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has a special message for me in the light of those wonderful battles that I used to have across the Floor of the Chamber with his father, and out of which I am happy to say there sprang a friendship which was most valuable to me. I apprehend from the gist of the noble Lord's remarks this afternoon that perhaps the battle will never become quite as intense as it used to be, but I echo the hope that we may hear him again soon, and often, and indeed that hope applies to both noble Lords.
When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, opened this debate he did me the honour of quoting something I once said, but unlike him I am quite clear how I can serve your Lordships' House to-day. I was a little amused and a little amazed that the noble Lord should have depended quite so much for his introduction on things that I said in 1962. How-
78
ever, it occurs to me that that is six years back, and I suppose six years is long enough for recollection to become slightly "muzzy". But when I think of a great many of the proposals that are contained in this Bill—writing off capital, writing off interest, and making; everything nice and easy in a way all of us would love to have for our own businesses if only we could obtain it—I seem to have heard those proposals somewhere before and, "muzzy" or not, in many respects my recollection went back to 1962 in regard to some of these matters. It certainly went back to the opposition that was then voiced to many of these measures by noble Lords belonging to the Party opposite when they were sitting on this side of the House, measures which they fought tooth and nail, only to produce them some years later.
It occurs to me that there is one major proposal in the Bill to-day which was not in the Bill six years ago; that is, that there was not the punitive restriction on road transport which is now proposed. If it is the opinion of the Government (as it may be) that that will make it work, I wish them the best of luck. If I am wrong in what I have said, I know that I can rely on the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, who is to follow me, to put me right. Otherwise, I am not going to follow noble Lords, however right they may have been, who have pointed out the dangerous potentialities of this Bill, its effect on the country's economy and the efficiency of its road transport.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument, tempted as I may be to take him on, as a result of his own inimitable and highly individual version of transport political history. Not surprisingly, I intend to concentrate on the interests of the private motorist, though I know it has been said that what is in the Bill does not in fact directly affect the interests of the private motorist. Does it not, my Lords? The fact that there has not been much mention of this point seems to indicate that there has not been much regard so far for the interests of some 15 million of the people of the country—and probably more if you take into consideration the families associated with them.

79
I often regret (I have said this before and I expect I shall say it again) that the word "motorist" was ever invented. It carries an implication of some kind of special animal or a race apart. But, after all, a motorist is only a citizen driving his car, the same citizen who is a pedestrian when on his feet or a cyclist when on a bicycle. And he is also, most likely, a taxpayer, a ratepayer, a voter, a householder; furthermore—and it is not a bad thing to remember this—he is also a man who is capable of taking, and probably does take, a considerable interest in the running of the country. I think that, in spite of Lord Shepherd's statistical attempts, and the righteous indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, the motorist is equally resentful of what I would call legislation by swamp—by which I mean the introduction by the Government of this Bill, vast as it is in size, enormous in its scope and implications—and I do not think he is to be blamed if he shares my view that it may well have been done in the secure knowledge that proper consideration of the Bill could not possibly be given by Parliament.
As the man who pays the household bills, our motoring citizen can be no less resentful of measures which can only have the inevitable result of forcing up the price of all those commodities he requires in his everyday life. His interests become even more closely affected, because the transport policies now being pursued by the Government in regard to commercial and public transport are of concern to him, and to the R.A.C. on his behalf, to the extent that they indicate that much more priority appears to be given to measures designed to facilitate the bolstering up of the railways than to what is required to ease the movement of road traffic. In particular—though I agree that it is not a matter to be dealt with by legislation, and not now—it is highly regrettable that there are still no signs of any really effective action to expand the road programme, athough the White Paper, Transport Policy acknowledges that almost 90 per cent. of passenger traffic, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, told us, almost 60 per cent. of freight, are carried by road. This 60 per cent. relates to the ton-mileage, but your Lordships will probably
80
recall that the National Plan, in the days when it was alive, had it that the tonnage of freight carried by road was over 80 per cent.
What is more, although I certainly do not deny the importance of improving public transport services on the roads, this is not by any means being pursued in a manner which recognises sufficiently the need for adequate facilities for the use of private and public transport vehicles in urban areas. In the years to come, nearly all the adult population will be vehicle owners or drivers, and they will expect to be able to use their cars or motor-cycles to the maximum advantage, in the cities as well as elsewhere. This is not new, because some years ago Sir Geoffrey Crowther's Steering Group pointed out in the preface to the Buchanan Report, Traffic in Towns, that a car-owning electorate will not stand for severe restriction as a remedy for the problems of living with the motor vehicle. Still less will they stand for severe restriction as a substitute for taking any action to cope with these problems.
More recently, Sir George Harriman, a great leader of the motor industry, drew attention to what seems to be a Governmental attitude, that the private motorist will put up with almost anything. He was discussing the recent Budget, grievous as it was, and he pointed out that the motor industry, and those who buy and use its products, might reasonably have expected, on past form, that their extra burden in finding the extra money the Chancellor needed would be no more than some £100 million, because between them they have been consistently providing just over 11 per cent. of the nation's revenue. However, it was decided that motor vehicles must contribute to the extra yield at more than twice this established rate. They must now provide not 11 per cent. but between 22 and 25 per cent. of the extra cash, which means another £200 to £230 million a year. He told us that more and more people want their car; they want to use it more and more as an essential adjunct to their daily affairs. The Government seem for the time being resolved to place some limit on that use by imposing a much higher tribute for the privilege, and it would seem, from to-day's debate, that they are equally determined to spend that tribute on any number of extraneous

81
purposes. This is what a great many people think; and they also think there should be a good deal more "give" as well as the predominant "take".
Much needs to be done to encourage the use of public transport. For instance, it would help if it were made much easier for motorists to "park and ride". I see there are some new powers in Clause 56 which I think could be used to pursue this objective constructively, by arranging to provide more off-street parking spaces adjacent to railway and Tube stations on the fringes of cities. But it will not work unless we ensure that parking charges are kept to the minimum, or, better still, of course, if there are not any. The grants, I see, under this would be towards the cost of approved projects which would include the construction or the major improvement of:
"interchanges, including, car parks, for people transferring to and from public transport systems".
I understand that the powers in this clause for the Minister to make grants to any person,
"for the purpose of the provision, improvement or development of facilities for public transport"
are in fact intended to extend also to grants for off-street parking accommodation generally.
I should very much like to hear in due course that the Government will confirm that this is so, and also perhaps tell the House what plans are being made to use the powers for this purpose. If it is not so, or perhaps even if it is, it is most unfortunate that the Government have not at least taken visibly wider powers to provide financial assistance generally to local authorities for off-street parking, as what I may call a "shot in the arm", which would enable much more progressive parking plans to be put into effect throughout the country without delay.
The British Road Federation has just conducted a survey, to be published soon, which shows that most local authorities are still not tackling this problem as a matter of urgency, in spite of the many clear warnings which have been given about the serious difficulties with which they will be faced in the future if proper action is not started now. The R.A.C. and I, separately and collectively, have repeatedly expressed the view for a long
82
time that the Government should regard the provision of off-street car parks to be a vitally important national requirement and should take powers to provide financial assistance to local authorities for this purpose. If they did, as the Roads Campaign Council's Morgan Report Pointed out, a national plan to improve the parking facilities throughout the country could be implemented as part of the road programme, to the considerable benefit of all concerned. On that I know that at least the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will agree with me.
A couple of interesting points arise on Clause 122. Here the powers to make traffic regulation orders are extended to permit orders to be made
"for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs."
If we take the words to mean what they say, it looks as if there may be a considerable overlap with the Countryside Bill, which your Lordships were considering a short time ago. Therefore I greatly hope that the Government will now give me the same assurances on that provision of this Bill as they have been good enough to give me on the Countryside Bill; namely, that suitable advice will be given to local authorities aid that the exercise of these powers will be fully and adequately considered to prevent the imposition of unreasonable restrictions for such purposes.
The clause also extends from four to eighteen months the period for which temporary speed limits can be imposed. I ask the Government for adequate assurances that the R.A.C. and all other interested organisations will be fully consulted before decisions are made to introduce any speed limits for such long periods, especially in the case of proposed experimental limits. We have been bitten once over this, and we do not want any repetitions of endless expansions of so-called experiments with a view to obtaining, or almost creating, public apathy and, meantime, conditioning public opinion by somewhat dubious public opinion polls. In fact, we do not want a repetition of the history of the introduction of the 70 m.p.h. limit. We want to do it properly in future.
Clause 123 provides for special parking concessions to be granted to particular classes of persons, who usually turn out to be residents in the area of a parking

83
meter scheme. This already happens in London, and more than once on behalf of the R.A.C. I have expressed strong objections in principle to these concessions which are in fact intended to authorise the use of the streets as a garage. This is not something which will in any way help to persuade local authorities to provide the off-street parking accommodation that is required. It seems to me much more likely in many cases to persuade them to adopt this measure as an acceptable course of negative action to cover up their failure to provide any off-street parking accommodation at all. This drastically reduces what space is available for vehicle users generally. This again leads, as is the case in London now, to higher charges for short-term parking, to limit the demand for inadequate space. It goes on to the slippery slope, and it will not do. Furthermore, the space is wasted when the resident is not using it, because nobody else can, although perhaps this would not be so important if there were reasonable alternatives open to other people.
Now I come to what I see as the most objectionable provisions in the Bill so far as private motorists are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has already referred to them. To be quite clear, I am talking of paragraph (b) of Clause 123, which seeks to extend the powers of local authorities in regard to the use of surplus income from parking meter schemes. When, in 1956, Parliament first approved the granting of powers to permit charges to be made for parking on the highway, unequivocal assurances were given by the Government at the time that private motorists need not fear that this was another way to impose additional motoring taxation. It was made clear that parking meters were to be the means of controlling street parking, and any incidental surplus income would be used by local authorities for the benefit of private motorists in accordance with stautory requirements which were then laid down, that it should be spent on the provision or the maintenance of off-street parking accommodation.
When, in 1960, the first parking meter orders began to come before your Lordships' House for approval, it was my lot to present them to your Lordships. I can well remember the anxiety
84
and insistence of your Lordships that all surplus revenue should be used as provided by Statute. Your Lordships on all sides of the House thought that, as did Members of another place and a great many people outside both Houses. I am sure I am right in saying that that was the firm and express view of all Parties, even if the distribution of seating was different from what it is now. In particular, I can well recollect that it was the express view of the Party opposite who now wish to demolish this principle. It was my job to give your Lordships assurance on this point, and I was able to do that as I can personally testify to your Lordships, with utter and complete sincerity. It was on the basis of this solemn and sincere assurance that the motoring public accepted this means of parking control.
The need for spending the surplus money on off-street parking has been reiterated and "chivvied up" again and again over the years by many different people in many different circumstances. Now, by this Bill, our confidence has been completely betrayed. A true and genuine prospectus has been converted into what I can only say is a dishonest let-down by what I can only describe as the callous indifference of the Government on matters of this kind. All the motoring public are deeply resentful of this dishonest example of what cannot better be described than highway robbery. So should your Lordships be resentful. Unfortunately, experience has shown that a limited contribution at best towards the cost of providing off-street car parks has been made from this source, because about 61 per cent. at least of the income has been swallowed up by the cost of administration and the enforcement of the meter schemes.
Judging from answers to Parliamentary Questions, the Ministry know more or less what the situation is in London, but the R.A.C. have just been carrying out, as best we could, a survey of the country, and I can confirm to your Lordships that 61 per cent., or approximately two-thirds of the money, 4d. in every 6d., goes on administrative expenses, and that seems to be a true pattern for the country as a whole. Couple that with the fact that in most large cities the off-street parking accommodation is still grossly inadequate, and there are no plans for

85
action visibly imminent which will satisfactorily meet the future requirements of the motoring public. It is not surprising, therefore, that private motorists will rightly consider that the assurances given that the money would be spent in this way to induce them to accept the imposition of charges for parking on the highway have now been turned into a false prospectus.
This proposed extension of local authorities' powers would, I say, divert the use of the surplus profits to apparently subsidise, so we are told, public transport or for highway improvements. It seems to me ludicrous, particularly at a time when recent developments in the public transport industry have clearly shown that the public's mobility is greatly dependent on the use of private transport, to suggest that private motorists should accept any such diversion in favour of public transport. It is equally fantastic that the Government should propose this diversion of funds to carry out highway improvements because only about a quarter of motoring taxation is used for the purpose anyway, and there is a very wide and ever widening gap between the Government expenditure on roads and the annual revenue they extract from motorists. So to pass this buck, small buck though it is, to the local authorities in this way instead of financing them properly from central funds for road improvements is a completely unacceptable way of tackling the problem of improving the road system.
There is no justification in the circumstances, my Lords, for raiding the parking funds. It is a development that could be the thin end of a particularly nasty wedge. How long will it be before someone suggests a further extension of this idea so that local authorities can use parking income for any of the other many and varied purposes it is their job to carry out but which are nothing to do with road transport in any shape or form? Last year, for instance, it was our job in the R.A.C. to petition against proposed new powers in the Portsmouth Corporation Bill which would have permitted the Portsmouth Corporation to impose parking charges on certain roads in Portsmouth without any restriction as to what happened to the surplus income. They subsequently, I admit, proposed an
86
amendment to provide that the surplus income should be used in providing and maintaining recreation facilities and other amenities in the vicinity of the esplanade. I am happy to tell your Lordships that the Committee that considered this matter in another place had the good sense to throw it out and so to prevent the creation of an undesirable precedent. As I said, the British Road Federation survey shows that there are few, if any, local authorities who provided completely adequate off-street parking accommodation for Present needs, let alone for future requirements. Therefore there can be no case to contend that the proposed additional Powers are necessary, and to this point If shall certainly return at a later stage of the Bill.
Clause 125 removes the necessity for traffic signs to be erected to indicate general speed limits applicable to motorways. This seems a very retrograde step, because I should think all this power would do is to encourage the imposition of blanket speed limits because they would involve no expense on signs, whereas the logical and sensible thing to do would be to vary the speed limits on different motorways as conditions differ between those motorways. This looks like leading to a sacrifice of common sense to expediency.
Clause 126, in conjunction with Schedule 18, will allow local authorities to impose speed limits on roads other than trunk roads without the consult of the Minister. For acceptance by drivers it is essential, in fact it is axiomatic, that speed limit policy and application should be uniform throughout the country and also that speed limits should not be unnecessarily restrictive. We said in the R.A.C. Road Safety Report in 1964 that this was necessary so that speed limits might be willingly and voluntarily observed by the majority of drivers and so that they might be satisfactorily enforced. For many years, as I well know, the Ministry of Transport have had difficulty in resisting local pressures for speed limits which the Ministry themselves consider to be unnecessarily restrictive. It would surely be even more difficult for local authorities to resist such pressures, and without some central control it is hardly likely, hardly possible, that there will be uniform application of limits throughout the country. If that is true, it will, in

87
turn, be likely to cause speed limits to fall into even greater disrepute than they are at present.
The question of enforcement brings me to Clause 127 and the question of fixed penalties and traffic wardens. When we were consulted by the Home Office about proposals to extend these powers and also the powers relating to the fixed penalty system, the R.A.C. indicated that, subject to certain safeguards, a limited extension of powers would be acceptable. The proposals in this clause have, in fact, gone further than the suggested limitations and they extend the fixed penalty system for some offences, mostly construction and use, which we had no idea at the time were under consideration. However, the specified offences do not include anything to which the totting up procedure applies, so I do not see any real reason to object to it.
However, it is our view that offences subject to the fixed penalty system must be self-proving and uncontroversial. It is also our view that greater use of the fixed penalty system should not cause any alteration of the current practice—which is especially important to relations between the police and the public—whereby a high proportion of the lesser or minor offences are dealt with by oral or written warnings instead of by prosecution. I certainly hope that satisfactory assurances may be forthcoming from the Government on this particular aspect, because these are provisions which were certainly not debated in another place. In view of the importance of them on people's lives, we must certainly see that they are thoroughly examined in the course of our consideration of the Bill. To this and other matters I have mentioned I shall return in further detail at later stages.
Naturally I do not wish to oppose the Second Reading stage—of course not—but with many others of your Lordships I will certainly be trying to seek a good deal of improvement in due course. In the meantime, I can only try to reveal to Her Majesty's Government, in the clearest light, that the citizens of this country, when driving their cars, cannot be permanently subjected to a continual barrage of prohibitions, restrictions and impositions, all resulting in more and more offences that they can commit,
88
without any corresponding benefit which they can see. Apart from anything else, there simply are not the means to enforce all these restrictions physically. I hope that the right honourable gentleman the new Minister of Transport will learn the lesson about endless restrictive regulations which is there in his Ministry to be learned, if he so wishes, and so himself play a major part in avoiding the enforcement of the law being the "laugh" that it is to-day. To-day, as things are, the British motorist, hedged about as he is by often unenforceable restrictions, is entitled to ask the Government, "What kind of people do you think we are?". To-morrow, my Lords, the British motorist may well give the Government a chance to find out.
6.51 p.m.
LORD BEECHING: My Lords, I will not waste any time by saying that this is not wholly a good Bill, because it seems to me that the true opinion in all parts of your Lordships' House is that, at best, it is no better than the curate's egg—only bigger. There are, of course, in a Bill of this size a great many proposals, and I certainly do not disagree with a great many of them. But there are among the major proposals several which I find it very difficult to accept. Your Lordships will no doubt be pleased to know that I shall deal with only one of them, and I do so since I want to emphasise how wrong this particular feature of the Bill is. I speak, of course, about that section of Part I of the Bill which, in my opinion, will damage the railways more seriously than anything else; namely, the proposed establishment of a National Freight Corporation.
I believe that there is a real need for a more rational use of the transport facilities of the country, and therefore I have a general sympathy with the purpose lying behind the proposed establishment of the National Transport Corporation. Moreover, although I do not myself believe that the right way to achieve rationalisation in this particular case is to set up one single authority, I can recognise the existence of arguments which lead naturally to the acceptance of this sort of solution by the Government. What I cannot reconcile myself to is the folly of the proposed relationship between the new Corporation and the Railways Board. It seems to me to be based upon

89
a defiance of logic and experience, without even a cloak of Party dogma to make it explicable.
At the risk of appearing to state the obvious, may I remind your Lordships that, although we speak of separate functions performed within industrial organisations, the two basic functions are the production of goods or services and the selling of those same goods or services. These two functions, in combination, are the ever-present heart of the business. All other functions are ancillary and serve only to check, in the present, or to improve, in the future, the effectiveness with which these two basic functions are performed in combination. The functions of producing and selling may require separate managements, because they are different and call for different skills. But this only makes it the more necessary for them to come under common management at the next higher level, because the success of the business depends directly and unavoidably upon the effective management of these two functions so that they are properly complementary.
Although there are several ways of achieving a balanced relationship between the two basic activities within a single business, it is an organisational absurdity to bring about deliberately a situation in which the two classes, production and selling, are split between two large separately accountable corporations. Even within a single company severe problems arise if one semi-autonomous part develops a sole supplier/sole customer relationship with another part, whether this be in relation to the whole of its particular business or in relation to some major part of it, some particular product or some particular service. That is difficult within a single business. It becomes quite impossible, in my opinion, if the split is made between two separate corporations, so that these two, in relation to some major activity, have this sort of sole supplier/sole customer connection. Such a split of responsibility applied to virtually the whole of the liner-train service will cripple a development which is vital to the railways' future.
When I think of all the highly emotional cries of "Butcher!" which were levelled against me when we made carefully considered, quite selective, cuts to prune away the most obviously redundant parts of the railway network, cuts which
90
were accompanied by the grafting in of the liner-train services, I am amazed that some noble Lords can sit on the Government Benches while a proposal to cleave that same, successfully developing liner-train business from stem to stern is being discussed—and being discussed as a prelude to an act of cannibalism. Perhaps for some reason cannibalism appears less reprehensible if at occurs only as between a victim and relatives by nationalisation, but no one can suppose that it will be any less fatal.
I believe that the previous Minister of Transport said on at least one occasion that the idea of a National Freight Corporation was based upon a proposal of my own. But any basis which this remark may have had must have been caused by a misunderstanding, and a misunderstanding of a rather significant kind. What I did propose, some years ago now, was that there should be only one nationalised authority responsible for a country-wide sundries or parcels service, and this proposal appears in the present Bill. There were, and are, very special reasons for proposing such a step; but—and here is the important difference—it was never contemplated that there would be dual control of this business under two quite separate authorities. The only linkage I contemplated between the new authority and the railways was the purchase of a minor part of the railways' freight capacity, on a straight commercial basis, for the carriage of only that part of the sundries authority's traffic which it was economic to send by rail. Such a proposal, as your Lordships will readily see, provides no justification for a proposal which will destroy unified control of the liner-train business as a whole and will deprive the railways of effective management of a part of their business upon which the viability of a main-line network is bound to depend very heavily in future.
We have the spectacle of a Government insisting on the maintenance of a greater main-line route mileage thin any traffic forecasts would justify, while imposing an organisational handicap which is bound to hamper the growth of some of the best traffic. Even the arbitrary forcing on to the railways, by road restriction, of some flows of traffic, questionable and short-lived as this result will probably prove to be, could,

91
even if it endured, scarcely compensate my railway friends for the wanton damage which this Bill will inflict upon them. This damage will go on for ever more if this authority is once set up in the way which is now proposed. I cannot see how by detailed amendment this proposal to set up the National Freight Corporation can be made satisfactory. It seems to me that it is not a matter of Party difference; it is a defiance of logic, and the proposal should be deleted from the Bill.
7.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Muirshiel, who I am sorry to see is not in his place to-day, used to have a habit of reading through the Bill before making a speech on Second Reading. If he had followed that habit to-day, he would have had to get up very early in the morning indeed to read through this Bill before making his Second Reading Speech. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made some comparisons between this Bill and the Transport Act 1962, and he said that the 1962 Act was slightly shorter. In fact, it is 102 pages shorter, so I do not know what he understands by the word "slightly".
In this debate we have covered a bewildering range of ground, simply because of the enormous length and complexity of the Bill. I found the debate fascinating but very difficult to follow because of its wide-ranging nature. I think I may be forgiven if I, in turn, open another subject, because that is my sole justification for speaking this afternoon, since my noble friend Lord Windlesham is to wind up from this Front Bench. This is a Bill which affects Great Britain as a whole, but there are some aspects which particularly affect Scotland. Although like many of my noble friends from Scotland I am interested in the many and varied facets of the Bill—and indeed I hope to take part in discussing them in Committee and during the remaining stages—I intend at least in the main, to confine my speech to-day to the application of the Bill to Scotland.
In Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and the North-East, lines of communication are long. The people in the outlying areas are wholly dependent on transport in all weathers, and some of
92
those weathers are worse than in most other parts of the country. For that reason, the quantity licensing proposals will bear especially heavily on Scotland. Also the standard of living of the people in the outlying areas is affected by increased transport costs more than is the case for those who live in more populous areas; and, of course, whatever else this Bill is going to do it will certainly increase transport costs.
The demand for transport in the outlying areas tends to be seasonal and even to arise suddenly in any area largely dependent on agriculture, forestry, fishing and tourism. The demand is seasonal for tourism, but is often sudden for fishing. The long haul South will be economic only if the haulier is able to pick up a return load, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply, who is a Scottish Minister, will be able to tell us how the haulier will be able to get a special authorisation for a return load at short notice. How is this business of return loads from these remote places to be organised and authorised? If there are to be exemptions, then we should be told exactly what they are to be. That would clearly save much time in Committee, and a great deal of Committee time in the House of Commons was, quite rightly, taken up in trying to find out what the exemptions were going to be.
Of course, exemptions are always tiresome, but the kind of restrictions on drivers' hours and mileages which may be suitable to populous areas in England and Wales, and even in the central belt of Scotland, are wildly unsuitable for the Highlands. Timber is a case in point. My noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry informed me that transport accounts for about 25 per cent. of timber costs to the purchaser. So any variation of transport charges makes a significant change in the cost of the goods to the purchaser, and without a return load the cost is apt to be pretty high.
I hope that both the Borders and the Highlands will benefit from Clause 39, which provides for grants for passenger services which, although run at a loss, ought to be retained for social or economic reasons. I quite see that the amount of the grant should be reviewed every three years as the Bill provides, but I hope this does not mean that the survival

93
of each assisted line concerned is to be called in question at such short intervals. If Scottish railway passenger services had such a precarious existence as that, the effect on planning and development could be most unfavourable.
I am disappointed that the Bill contains no provisions for the tapering of freight charges in remote areas, for the greatest single handicap of the Highlands is the length of communications. It seems to me that, if a line is to be kept open for passenger services, the more commercially attractive it is made for freight the less grant will have to be paid on the passenger services, and the less need there will be for artificial means of transferring traffic from road to rail.
I am not in favour of forcing freight traffic on to the railways. It is surely wrong to consider only the finances of the railways. To compel a haulier or a producer who has, after the most careful weighing of the pros and cons, decided to invest in a fleet of vehicles for long-distance traffic, to stop using them and to require the goods to be sent by rail instead, against his better judgment, is merely to transfer unused capacity from the railways to the roads. It would probably cause the haulier, whether or not he was the owner of the goods, a considerable loss on the disposal of the vehicles and may well turn out to give him a much inferior service for his own requirements, however equal on paper the services offered by the railways may appear in speed, reliability and cost to the Chairman of the Traffic Commissioners. After all, the Chairman cannot possibly know the finer points of the business of the person for whom the goods are carried, as well as that person can himself know. To make matters worse, the poor Chairman is not to be allowed to exercise his own judgment on speed, reliability and cost, as under subsection (6) of Clause 74 he is to be obliged to assess these factors as well as any detriment to the person for whom the goods are carried.
"in accordance with any directions contained in regulations made by the Minister."
Who is to compensate the carrier and the person for whom goods are carried for the detrimental effects of a wrong decision?—and there are bound to be wrong decisions. The detrimental effects could be very heavy.
94
To abolish all restrictions on the capacity of the road haulage industry and on the work for which any lorry may be used, as the Geddes Committee recommended, would be a great boon for the outlying areas. Now that the railways have started to exploit new techniques, what is needed is not to protect and coddle them by twisting the rules in their favour, but to enable them to compete on equal terms fairly and openly. They will never flourish otherwise, my Lords; of this I am convinced. I view with the greatest misgiving for the economy and the character of the country the prospect of a growing monopoly in freight transport services. The danger of becoming lethargic, smug, inefficient and high-handed is very great for any monopoly, but it is particularly acute, I should have thought, for freight transport. It can happen in passenger transport, too, where there is no choice for the passenger.
I must say that it seems odd that the Scottish Office has not yet made up its mind whether it wants any Passenger Transport Authorities and Passenger Transport Executives or not. I strongly suspect that they were not given enough time to do so by the previous Minister of Transport, after she had finally decided to interpose Passenger Transport Authorities to give some semblance of accountability to local authorities between herself and the Executives. By that time the Scottish Bus Group had started to negotiate with Glasgow Corporation with a view to taking over the running of their buses, though not their ownership. That seems effectively to scupper the prospects of a Passenger Transport Authority in the most likely area of Scotland—and thank goodness for that! The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has just left the Chamber, spoke of the need for integration in transport. I am all for integration, but I do not like shams. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that the original conception of the autonomous authority has been greatly weakened, and it looks as if it is going to be much more weakened in this Bill. I am inclined to think that the reason why it has been weakened so much is the fact that deficits have been incurred by autonomous authorities and, of course, if deficits are to be incurred by Passenger

95
Transport Executives then it makes it more difficult to pass those deficits on to the local population if there is no representation from the local population.
My Lords, so far as the Passenger Transport Authorities are concerned, I think it will at least mean that passengers will have to meet the costs of carrying them—certainly this will be so, I think, in Glasgow, where there is not to be a Passenger Transport Authority—and there will be no nonsense there about precepts on the rates to meet general deficits which arise from the inefficiency of a Passenger Transport Executive. I am not speaking of pre-arranged deficits on particular services, of deficits agreed in advance: I am speaking of unplanned deficits, which can easily arise through an Executive's activities. If those deficits do arise and there is nobody to pay them under the Passenger Transport Authority system, although the Passenger Transport Authority has no responsibility for it whatsoever, they will simply have to pass them on to the local authorities concerned.
My Lords, if it is decided not to have Passenger Transport Authorities in Scotland, then some other machinery will have to be devised for assisting with railway deficits on suburban rail passenger transport. Clause 58 was introduced at a late stage in the Commons to give local authorities in Scotland power to give financial assistance to the railways for passenger services. What assistance comparable to the assistance to be given to the Passenger Transport Executives in respect of agreements under Clause 20 in England is to be available to local authorities in Scotland who assist the railways financially under Clause 58? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that to-night, and I hope the Government will not permit the clause to be used by the railways to blackmail local authorities by threatening to close lines unless financial assistance is forthcoming.
I do not object to the severance of the Scottish Bus Group from the Transport Holding Company, althought it is hard on the Transport Holding Company to be deprived of its biggest profit earner. With it will go MacBrayne, which is at once one of the most useful and one
96
of the most criticised of Scottish companies.
I hope that no attempt will be made to take over the minority shareholdings in organisations such as MacBrayne's. I think there has been considerable advantage in having Coast Lines involved in MacBayne's. There is considerable advantage in diversity of shareholder representation, in enabling undertakings to keep a sense of proportion. Nor do I see any need for the new Scottish Transport Group to dispose of MacBrayne's haulage interests. I sense a very poor resistance from the Scottish Office in having imposed on Scotland the rigid pattern which the Bill seeks to impose on England.
When we come to freight transport I confess I am mystified. Even if the Transport Holding Company are to be deprived of their bus interests, I see no advantage whatsoever in taking away their haulage interests. The White Paper on the transport of freight pays a tribute to the Transport Holding Company's success in tackling the problems of handling general merchandise and parcels traffic. If some closer co-ordination, such as the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, suggested, is necessary with the railways in handling this sort of traffic, I certainly should not object, but I should have thought that one possible answer was to set up a joint subsidiary or subsidiaries but not to dismantle completely the Transport Holding Company. I see no reason why it should not remain as it is to handle freight.
As for freightliner traffic, I am wholly in accord with the views expressed about the folly of depriving the railways of their most promising transport development. If this means an attempt to monopolise the availability of freightliners, it is a most restrictive and damaging proposal. If it does not, then it is clumsy and quite unnecessary, and deals a severe blow at both the finances and the prestige of the railways. The suggestion that the railways are going to be too busy to sell their freightliner services themselves, which is implied in the White Paper, seems to me to be quite ludicrous.
It is not immediately apparent to me why it is necessary to have a single holding company, the Scottish Transport Group, to own and administer all the internal road and shipping passenger services with the exception of a few

97
municipal bus undertakings and some private passenger services in outlying areas. As I said before, I fully agree with Lord Robertson about the need for integration, but I also very much agree with him that integration can be achieved in several ways. It is not necessary to have complete control by ownership. Organisations like the Caledonian Steam Packet Company in the Clyde, I see from the Bill, are to receive quite separate grants, and will presumably, like most of the component units of the group, be separately managed. That is an example of something which is separately managed, and it does not seem clear why this should necessarily be taken under the Scottish Transport Group.
I suppose one answer is that the number of State owned or controlled organisations has now outrun the capacity of the Treasury to control them individually. I do not believe, at any rate, that it has anything to do with efficient management or responsiveness to public need, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to explain the need for this large combination of diverse transport undertakings in Scotland. In the present upsurge of national consciousness it is always speciously popular to call some organisation Scottish—indeed, there is already a Scottish Bus Group—but that is no excuse for submerging the incentive to the widest possible circle of people to meet the infinitely varying needs of the community for transport. The needs of the community do not, of course, vary nearly so much in passenger transport as they do in the carriage of goods, contrary to what the White Paper seems to suggest. That is why we do not oppose the proposals for a Scottish Passenger Transport Group (although we are not convinced of their necessity) but we shall look with great disfavour at any tendency towards restriction of choice in the transport of goods, and we shall press for consideration of the special needs of the outlying areas.
7.20 p.m.
LORD McLEAVY: My Lords, the size of this Bill is in itself an indication of the problems arising from the growth of all forms of transport. It is the first time since the Transport Act 1947 that the Government have faced up to the urgent need for a radical change in the planning of this vital industry. I remember
98
very well how strongly the Conservative Opposition in another place opposed the passage of that Act. Their hostility to the present Bill shows how little they have learned from a changing world. As I went through all the arguments put forward against the Bill in another place I found them to be in the main those which were used against the 1947 Act some 20 years ago. Surely the Conservative Party ought to have a new look at their policy and bring it up to modern requirements. I found the views of The Times more refreshing. In its leader of May 28, under the heading, "Not a bad Monster", it said that the Bill:
"has been described, more often than not with a touch of malice, as Mrs. Castle's monument. It is certainly monumental; but it is a work of which on the whole she can be proud, and for which the nation can be grateful."
My Lords, although The Times had some criticism of certain sections of the Bill it appeared to consider it necessary in the national interest. I think that criticism is good—good in Parliament, good in the Press, good anywhere that it arises, provided that it is constructive criticism and that it is made with a desire to improve the Bill. The provisions of the Bill affect many interests and it is natural that those affected should seek to safeguard their interests as best they can. Our duty in Parliament is to give full consideration to any representations made from industry and to weigh them against the wider interests of national needs. Anyone who has been associated with transport over the years knows how wasteful it is, both in manpower and in material, that while our roads are congested with heavy freight and other vehicles the railway system is starved of traffic and is losing something like £150 million a year. Surely this I situation does not make sense. It is not good government; it is not good national policy.
I believe that the urgent need to-day is for a properly integrated road and rail freight service which will make full use of the railways. There seems to me to be no better way of serving the needs of industry, particularly in the development areas, than to ensure that transport is both efficient and economical. Indeed, the railways are essential to the industrial and communal life of the nation and

99
they should be used to the fullest possible extent.
I should like to say a few words on the public passenger transport side of the Bill. The proposed passenger transport areas and the procedure set out for the management and control seems to me to be well-founded. I like very much the provisions made to leave the planning and control of local transport in the hands of local government authorities within given areas. That local transport investment should be grant-aided will be most helpful in many ways, particularly in the rural areas. While I welcome the proposed bus fuel grant, I should prefer that the tax be abolished altogether. I can assure your Lordships that there is a strong case for this to be done in respect of passenger transport.
Now a word upon workers' participation. That a statutory duty will be applied to ensure consultation with the trade unions upon the setting up of machinery for consultation and negotiation with the workers on the terms and conditions of employment, measures affecting safety, health and welfare, and improved efficiency, will be generally welcomed. These provisions will maintain the best possible relationship between the parties concerned and are bound to reflect upon the standard of public service. This Bill represents a major step towards solving our transport problem. There will, however, be many clauses which we shall wish to examine more closely at the Committee stage, and particularly some which were not discussed in another place. I trust that the broad principles of the Bill will commend themselves to your Lordships.
7.28 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, I was a little disappointed at the way in which this debate started, the idea that this Bill is likely to cause a lot of trouble in this House. I believe that this is a momentous Bill. It did not surprise me at all to see how large it was. If we show that we cannot deal with it, now that it is before us, it is not the Transport Bill that we are exposing, it is the inadequacy of the Parliamentary system to deal with Government business. I hope that we shall not put this House in that very invidious position, because this is a
100
momentous Bill that meets a deep need. Since Transport is one of the subjects which must always be before us in some form, the fact that we now, after an interval of six years, have it before us in a major form is in no way exceptional.
How does one see the transport system? Is it not really the veins and arteries of our economic life? Will not the strength of our economic life be valued in some terms by the health of those essential elements in the body economic? It is for that reason that it is our duty, as I see it at this time, to look very carefully at what is put before us. The rapid movement of people and goods around the country, and in and out of the country, is our lifeblood. One of the things we have seen in the last ten years—and this is the first part of the transport system—is the very much more rapid pace at which goods and people can move. The motorways, the improvements on the railways, have allowed traffic to go at speeds which ten years ago were inconceivable, except on race tracks. This has made an enormous difference and, as I see it, fully justifies the whole of Part V of this Bill where we wish to look at all the so-called safety devices, whether by rail or road.
We need, as we know from recent experience, to look at the safety of level crossings. We need to look at the efficiency of vehicles using the roads. We need to look at the whole of the licensing system. We wish to satisfy ourselves that drivers drive vehicles, which are highly lethal weapons, only when they are in a fit state to do so. It has to be said, I think, in this connection that the haulage industry has been a little slow to assume its social responsibilities. We all know about the outcry that occurs when it is suggested that brakes ought to be tested, or that tyres ought to be seen to be efficient. And we know the way in which road transport operators will take advantage, if they can, by not providing themselves with adequate depots in which to house vehicles, but leave them cluttering up quiet residential streets. Many such cases have been brought to my notice. This, to my mind, is not social behaviour and it is something which must be put right by legislation if the industry is not prepared to do it.
At this late hour, my Lords, I wish to refer to only one other Part of the

101
Bill, Part II, relating to Passenger Transport Areas. I think this a most important development. Although London is not included in this specific category on this occasion, because it has been dealt with otherwise, I have been engaged in this exercise for some years. It is true to say that five or six years ago the only contact with transport that the local authority and the planning authority had was the six-monthly luncheon between the chief planning officers of the two authorities. Clearly, with the speed at which transport planning is moving to-day this is not enough. I want to underline the great benefit that comes, not so much to transport but to town planning in general, from a development such as this. Each Transport Authority will be a consortium of the local authorities, and planning and transport will never have been brought so closely together before. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will appreciate, as I do, how very important this is. In future they will be able to be consulted and brought in very closely on one-way working, on clearways, on speed restrictions, on the development of new roads.
In the other field, that of welfare services, they will not only be able to make a contribution, if they so wish, to help the disabled, the blind and other categories of people who in some way or other are handicapped, but also be able to ensure that their own new developments, as well as the developments by private developers, are suitably provided for right from the beginning, and not just from the time when a new estate is fully housed, the shops are open and there is a mass of traffic to deal with. The benefits for Town planning that flow from transport planning are enormous, and I should not like them to be overlooked in any debates and discussions of this kind. I hope that when this Bill has gone through the Committee stage, and when we have had all the long arguments that we shall have, your Lordships will feel that this is a necessary Bill and one worthy to be passed in this Session of Parliament.
7.35 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in the very few moments during which I wish to address your Lordships' House I wish to say that I cannot possibly sup-
102
port a Bill which, although it contains some good provisions, will increase the cost of transport in this country at this very difficult time for our economy, and will also take away a great amount of the freedom of choice of individuals to decide which forms of transport they wish to use. To-day we have heard from three noble Lords who have had vast experience in the transport field and who have held important jobs: the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who was Chairman of the British Transport Commission; the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who was also Chairman of the Commission and the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, who was Chairman of the Commission and of the Railways Board. They all said that it would damage the railways if their liner-train business were taken away; and with that I fully agree. I also agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Benching, who asked why railway finances should be weakened further. We want to strengthen railway finances. The noble Lord also said—and again I fully agree with him—that in his opinion it is impossible to amend the relevant clause in the Bill, and that it ought to be left out.
My Lords, the other point to which I wish to draw attention relates to Part IV of the Bill, and Clause 38. Subsection (4) of Clause 38 says:
"Without prejudice to section 45(6) of this Act, section 2 of the Act of 1962 (which requires the Railways Board to set up Regional Railway Boards to share between them responsibility for the national railway system) shall cease to have effect."
I took part in most of these battles on transport. The Transport Commission as originally set up under the 1947 Act was followed by the Railway Executive, and there were always rows between the Commission and the Executive about who was to do what. In 1962, when the Transport Commission was abolished, the Conservative Party tried to decentralise the nationalised railway system. Vie set up, instead of the old Railway Executive, the Railways Board, and the Regional Boards. Now the Minister is taking powers to abolish these Regional Boards. He does not say that he is going to do so, but the Bill gives him the power, and probably he will do so. What will be the effect in Scotland which has its own Regional Board? Scotland will come under the Central Board, in London. I

103
think that highly undesirable, because we have had experience recently of Scotland and Wales saying that they want more regional control over their activities.
Powers have been taken in this Bill—and it may be right—to strengthen the Central Board and not to decentralise the vast system of railways into Regional Boards, as we tried to do in 1962. I do not think the set-up since that time has been working too badly, although there were differences of opinion between the regional set-ups and the centre. Your Lordships will remember that Mr. Fiennes, the able General Manager of the Eastern Regional Board, had a difference of opinion with the Railways Board; the speeches that he made displeased the Railways Board very much, and he was dismissed. Then the former Chairman of the Railways Board disagreed with the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this Bill, to hive off the liners from the Railways Board; so he resigned.
I think it quite wrong to take away from the railways this small amount of decentralisation which we tried to bring about. Everything has to be referred to London, and it is bound to slow up the industry. So I hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to tell us why they have taken these powers. I think that they are quite unnecessary, and I shall try in Committee stage to delete that part of the clause and still keep these useful Regional Boards, which are much more in touch with the public. It will be otherwise, if everything is to be done in London.
7.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, neither at this late hour nor at any other hour would I consider going right the way through a Bill like this. In any case, I do not regard it as a polite thing to do in this House, merely to make a speech in which one bolsters one's own authority by quoting bits of the speeches of other noble Lords and saying one agrees with them. That is not a method of making speeches I could possibly follow. I have got up at this late hour to talk about something I know something about—therefore, as your Lordships will know, I want to talk about waterways.
The waterways clauses of this Bill have three main effects on the waterways. The first effect is to split the navigable water-
104
ways into two categories. First of all, there is the category of major waterways. whose main purpose is to carry cargo, but which, of course, have many other purposes. The second category is that whose main use is all the other purposes of waterways—pleasure uses, water supplies and the rest. I cannot disagree with this spliting of the waterways into two categories, because I have a feeling that I invented it myself and put it to the Minister a long time ago. The only thing I quarrel with is the calling of this category of what I might call non-cargo waterways "cruising waterways", because cruising is not their main purpose. The main purpose financially is carrying water, because they get most of their revenue from this. If it is a question of how many people they please, then their main purpose is not cruising but angling, because anglers use the waterways far more than anybody else. The word "cruising" is a slight insult to the anglers. I should like to see them called "amenity waterways", and if the Government were willing to accept an Amendment along this line I should be happy to put it down.
The second effect of these clauses is to provide an advisory commitee. This is very necessary, partly because of the lack of knowledge of waterways which has always been quite extreme in Whitehall and partly because it is extremely valuable to the water users themselves. At present there are many separate categories. There are the people who are supplied with water, the fishermen, the local authorities, industry and the boating enthusiasts. They have not always seen eye to eye in the past, even though some people at the head of each of these categories have realised that they are inevitably linked together, not only because their separate finances contribute to the financing of the waterways but also because physically the activities of each category help to keep the waterways cleaner and easier for the others to use. A waterway is like a footpath: the more it is trodden the better it becomes, and the various users of the waterway help to tread it out (so to speak) for each other. This is just beginning to be understood, but so far there has been no forum where the various users could get together, consult each other and hammer out things to present to the Minister.

105
This extremely valuable little committee is now, thank heavens!, to be set up and it will be of a first-rate value to the waterways in telling the Minister what is the consensus of opinion of waterways users. I must admit that when I first heard that this committee was to be set up I had a slight hope that I might be on it myself, but when I saw that Mr. Illtyd Harrington, recently put on the British Waterways Board and formerly the extremely successful Chairman of the G.L.C.'s Parks Committee, had been appointed Chairman and when I saw the very fine list of members of the new committee, I came to the conclusion that it was going to he superbly staffed, that they would all do the job much better than I could hope to do it. I am happy to go off and do other things which I find take up my life without my having to concern myself with another committee.
The third thing the Bill does for the waterways is to devise a completely new legal set up. The waterways used to depend partly upon Local Acts of Parliament, of which there is the horrifying number of 600, and partly on national Acts, such as Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act which the Bill now proposes to repeal. This set-up had the great value of preventing the waterways from being illegally closed. I remember what a fight we had in this House at the time of the last Transport Act, when the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and I, acting together, managed to get Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act preserved and embedded in the Bill, although the then Government had intended to repeal it.
Now an entirely different set-up is to be created. The idea is to have the waterways much more under ministerial control and to make the whole concept much more flexible so as to adapt the waterways to their new uses, to strike out of the system those waterways not required and to bring into the system other waterways which will make the system more suitable for its new purposes. This is excellent for many reasons. To begin with, nobody likes the old Private Bill procedure for waterways. Not only is it expensive for the British Waterways Board and therefore for the taxpayers, but it is also extremely difficult for any individual person or body to fight
106
the proposals. Private legislation is notoriously expensive, and opposing it involves sums of money far beyond the means of an individual and often of an association. If a more modern set-up can be created, where there is a public hearing, at which appeals can be put in—and there is also the advisory committee—then that is far superior to anything that we have now.
There is, however, one caution which must be attached to this. Waterways are at the moment heavily subsidised owing to the fact that there is no reasonable method of cheaply abolishing them. The most expensive thing you can do with a waterway is to try to get rid of it. Therefore, whatever we do with these waterways—even if we stop using them altogether—we shall be saddled with a very large running expense which will go on as far into the future as we can see. The cheapest thing to do these waterways is to try to build up their revenue to the point where it gets rid of the deficit. Here we must notice that in the last few years the British Waterways Board has been the only nationalised organisation which has continually reduced its deficit in a major amount each year; and their deficit continues to fall steadily by a large percentage. This is almost entirely due to the better use of the waterways and if this is continued, it is the cheapes: thing for the country. It will also save for us a large amenity which, because of its beauty and the amount of pleasure it gives, not only in the countryside but in our towns, is something that we very much want to retain.
The caution that I want to give is this. If we are to develop these waterways, we must have some security of tenure for all those commercial firms which wish to take part in the process. Nobody will put money into any waterside concern if the waterway itself may suddenly be closed by a ministerial order, possibly without warning. There mast be reasonable security of tenure for al these firms which wish to help in the development of the waterways, and there must be adequate compensation for them if, unfortunately, a waterway has to be closed.
If those two things can be granted, and if the waterways system can be

107
looked at with an eye to the future, with the idea that the use of waterways is rapidly growing, and the revenue will be provided to make up the losses, then I think we can put the waterways of this country on their feet, and make them not only cease to be money losers, but actually money winners in the transport system. But we must make sure that the clauses of the Bill produce that position; that they give adequate security; that where a waterway has to be closed, adequate compensation is paid; and also that the system is allowed to develop properly for its new purposes, and not be knocked about and chopped about before the young tree really has time to take root. That is the only warning I wish to issue on this matter. Apart from that, so far as the waterways are concerned—and I hope this might be agreed by noble Lords opposite—I believe this to be a good Bill.
7.53 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, outside Parliament I have heard this Bill described as a massive monument to bureaucracy and the assisted salvation of the railways, when in effect the railways should be encouraged to compete for traffic on sound commercial principles. Naturally, they have an important part to play. But is the proposed method of reorganisation right; and is the timing right? I think that on those two counts one can have reservations. As my noble friend Lord Watkinson asked earlier, can this country afford at the present time the luxury of putting further costs on industry or of doing anything that may impede production or hinder the flow of exports or the timely arrival in our factories of the necessary raw materials?
If transport is to be a link with production, subordinated to production schedules, surely a flexible and immediately available transport service is required. In the past, the transport industry has certainly suffered for far too long from a surfeit of administrative changes and instability, and a period of consolidation is badly needed. Will this proposed reorganisation achieve the required flexible structure to meet constantly changing demands? One doubts it. Nor will it permit the development of
108
true competition between transport providers to justify these proposals.
It has been said that users of transport are unreasonably prejudiced against rail. That is a curious statement when one considers the growing success of the freightliner, mentioned by several noble Lords in this debate, with its economic and efficient services adapted to the needs of industry. The user requires a transport system that is flexible and convenient. Can it be, though, that her Majesty's Government are now (when I say "now", I mean within the last few days) beginning to realise what influences consignor or user in his choice of road or rail? For, as I understand it, as the Bill is now drafted both road and rail operators will have to present detailed evidence, so that the traffic will not be awarded solely on a comparison of rates charged.
On the theme of flexibility and convenience, do the Government feel that sufficient has been done to overcome the fundamental defects in the special authorisation system solely by turning the emergency procedure into a procedure based on urgency, and by the Minister's statement at the Hilton Hotel on April 22 last, at a T.R.T.A. meeting, that he saw no reason why licensing authorities should not maintain a 24-hour service in order to deal with urgent applications? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he comes to reply, can comment on this statement by the Minister. Perhaps he would also be kind enough to say whether the Ministry have now had an opportunity of looking at the T.R.T.A. adaptation of the Dutch licensing system, which I understand meets, by persuasion, all the objectives of the special authorisation procedure while eliminating most of its defects.
As it would appear, judging by the Government's change of attitude to a certain extent, that it is now their intention to see that their system is flexibly administered, will a situation not arise whereby, if the conditions are liberal and the system flexible, much traffic will escape the freightliner net? If, on the other hand, the Government secure the primary purpose of maximising the traffic which must go through the licensing procedure, then they may end up, I should have thought, with a situation in

109
which one haulier who is authorised to carry the traffic is unable to do so, because his vehicles are otherwise committed, and a second haulier, who is willing and able, is not permitted to do so because he does not have the special authorisation.
While welcoming the fact that the Road Transport Industry Training Board has now established round the country nine regional offices to assist and advise employers in industry, I hope, with regard to the proposed transport manager's licence, that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will heed the conclusions reached at a meeting of representatives from a number of bodies; that is to say, the Industrial Transport Association, the Institute of Road Transport Engineers, the Road Haulage Association, the T.R.T.A., the Institute of Transport, the Institute of Traffic Administration and the Road Transport Industry Training Board. At this meeting, on April 26, they came to the conclusion that in the case of small vehicle fleets licences should be issued to any persons capable of satisfying simple conditions relating to academic ability or practical ability in so far as vehicle maintenance or operating are concerned. With larger fleets, naturally, higher standards would be required. Would the noble Lord not agree that it would be in industry's interests to develop standards to be achieved by applicants for licences, in the form of either a written examination or practical tests? Could not an independent body be set up which would grant the appropriate certificate or licence, as masters' tickets are granted to mariners?
I would add that it seems curious that at a time when our application to join the E.E.C. is on the table (and this was again stressed this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont) no effort has been made by Her Majesty's Government to bring some of their present proposals into line with Common Market policy, two important tenets of which are that users should be free to choose their transport and that own-account transport—the "C" licence transport—should be unrestricted. Also, how do the quantity licensing provisions conform with the opinion of the Commission that any regulation of capacity which results in compulsory distribution of traffic is incom-
110
patible with the fundamental principles of the common transport policy?
Regarding drivers' hours, it is curious that Her Majesty's Government are not able to emulate the more flexible regulations which the Common Market countries—that is to say, our competitors—are proposing. They are proposing a maximum working day of 13 hours, but with the allowance that on two lays a week the maximum of 9 hours per day driving time can be exceeded for the purpose of coping with big or seasonal demands. Even with the Government's latest concessions there is not that latitude, and I think it is a very important one. This may be a point to which one could return at Committee stage. In conclusion, I would say that I fail to see how these present proposals will achieve what should be, it seems to me, our overriding objective; that is, to set up an efficient system for moving freight (at the moment I am referring only to freight) at the cheapest cost and within the widest range of choice for the trader or industrialist.
8.5 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise briefly at this late hour to draw your attention to a matter which I do not think has been raised in the debate to-day. It is Clause 139, a clause which is causing much worry and anxiety among railway enthusiasts and educational authorities and London boroughs, for this is the clause which will give legal force to the dispersal of a unique national collection of transport relics. Briefly the history is this. At the time of the nationalisation of railways the private companies handed over their precious relics which they had guarded for so many years, on the understanding that they would be brought together under one roof and preserved as a National Museum of Transport. For many years nothing was done, but at long last Clapham emerged as a site, and it was fortunate that London Transport—
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? It was not the old railway companies who made an arrangement of that sort; it was done by the Transport Commission. The Transport Commission formed a national collection of both the archives and the records very shortly after their formation.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am obliged to the noble Lord, but I think he will agree that these relics came from the private companies.
LORD HURCOMB: They were taken over, of course.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: On the understanding that they would be looked after.
LORD HURCOMB: No.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, perhaps I have been misinformed. I know that the noble Lord knows more about this subject.
LORD HURCOMB: As a matter of fact, my Lords, the private companies were singularly unco-operative. They all wanted to hang on to their own things. They had no interest in a national collection. If it had not been for the nationalised Transport Commission the collection of both the archives and the relics would never have been made.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I certainly bow to the noble Lord's wisdom in this matter. But I think that, whoever did it, this is a unique collection of transport relics.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I agree.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I thank the noble Lord. And the fact remains that they ended up in Clapham, and there they have been. This was not an ideal site, as I think everybody will agree, but the result was that, due to the very hard work and excellent direction of the curator there—and a lot of money has been spent on this—the collection came together in one place. This has not been a financial success. I am afraid that, possibly due to lack of interest, although with intelligent management on the part of the British Railways Board, a substantial loss is incurred. But I submit that this was possibly unnecessary in the past and will be unnecessary in future.
Under this Bill the responsibility for these relics is going to be transferred to the Department of Education and Science. This was probably a very good idea, because I do not think anybody expects the British Railways Board to run museums. But, unfortunately, the first thing the Department have decided to do is to
112
break up the collection and send part of it to York. London Transport will naturally retain its own relics in London. Either they will be sold or sent to other museums, if any have room for such exhibits. It is even rumoured that the unique Royal coaches will not be preserved any more, and with the sale of the land at Clapham it is proposed to open a new museum in York. But one rather sad comment on this is that, although the sale is expected to raise three-quarters of a million pounds, at least one-third will be spent on moving these exhibits up to York, because moving railway engines is a very expensive business.
This decision was made as a result of a recommendation by a Committee. I am not sure what terms of reference that Committee had, but if the White Paper is anything to go by they were not asked to consider any steps that might be taken to make Clapham viable; and, after all, with 165,000 visitors a year this should not be impossible. Nor did they consider whether the move could be made to any other site in London, if an alternative site was available. To many people an alternative site does exist, a unique site, and that is St. Pancras Station. I have it on good authority that had the Committee known about the possibilities of St. Pancras they might well have come to a different decision.
Let us consider St. Pancras for just a moment. It is in the centre of London, near to Madame Tussauds, which attracts one and half million visitors a year. It is a famous historical railway centre with a rail link. It not only has room for transport relics, but also could exhibit many other items of industrial archæology which would illustrate the great age of our industrial expansion which took place in Victorian England. In addition there would be room for the archives, which also are doomed to be moved to York, much to the dismay of railway scholars and other people who wish to do research in London. Again, at St. Pancras there are facilities such as hotels and car parks.
Briefly, tonight I wish only to ask whether it is too late to reconsider this sad decision. In making these comments I am not saving anything against York, or indeed Swindon, whose fine regional collection should also be kept in being and, if possible, extended in due course. It will not be long before

113
millions of young people will be alive in this country who will never have seen a steam locomotive or seen a tram rolling along the streets, and in spite of the excellent but, of necessity, restricted collection at the Science Museum a supreme opportunity is being lost for creating a fine setting for a unique collection of vehicles. Not only that, but it would be a wonderful tourist attraction for London. After all, with the greatest of good will one cannot expect people who are spending two or three days in London to go all the way up to York in order to see a museum.
In addition, the education authority of London is only just waking up to the fact that the closing down of the exhibition at Clapham will be a great loss to their curriculum. Twenty London boroughs have already made their opinions known. I feel the Government owe it to future generations to think again about this matter. The destruction of the Clapham exhibition is indeed a scandal and must be reconsidered.
8.12 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, apologised for the fact that he would not be able to be here for the end of the debate, but we had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the Minister responsible for winding up for the Government might have found it possible to be present by this stage. In the course of the debate we have heard many justifications given by supporters of the Government for this Bill. We have heard of the need to co-ordinate road and rail in order to use national transport resources to the best effect. We have heard of the need to put an end to "wasteful" competition, but nobody has had the temerity to try to define "waste". We have heard of the need for nationalised transport undertakings to operate under clearly established financial disciplines. But where is the pattern? Where is the grand design? Where is the philosophy which makes it necessary to combine so many different proposals into this one enormous Bill?
At the end of the debate I make no apology for returning again to the statement made by Mrs. Castle in another place when she introduced the Bill on Second Reading. She was quite explicit and said that throughout the Bill there
114
ran one unifying theme. She went on to describe it as:
"… what I would call practical Socialism. As a Socialist, I believe that transport is a vital service to industry and to our people and that, if economic planning or the physical planning of our environment is to make any sense at all, transport planning must form part of it. In the same way, transport services must be planned in relation to each other—not allowed to go their own sweet way regardless of consequences."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/12/67, col. 1281.]
LORD STRABOLGI: Hear, hear!
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am glad to hear some support from the other side of the House.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am giving my support not only because I agree with Mrs. Castle's words butt also because I quoted them at the beginning of this debate.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Then, my Lords, I think the noble Lord ought to get together with the Minister who introduced the debate. We shall see how it reads in Hansard to-morrow, but I think he will find that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was rather dissociating himself from that line of argument.
The Bill is one that we, on this side of the House, oppose on three different levels. Listening to the arguments which have been put forward during the debate we find that most of them fall into three categories. First, we believe that this Bill has been gravely mishandled by the Government. It has not been sufficiently thought out, and it has been introduced too late. It is beyond doubt that no major piece of legislation of this size—it is twice the size of the 1962 Transport Bill—has ever been introduced so late in the Session. Second, we believe it contains a number of fundamentally bad proposals, most notably those for quantity licensing and for transferring the freightliners from British Rail to the National Freight Corporation, but also others which we shall be raising in Committee. Third, the Bill goes to the root of the differences between the outlook of the two main Parties. What is the role of competition in transport? How is co-ordination of transport services best achieved? Through the market place? By an overall co-ordinating body? Or through common ownership? Should State owned boards be as free as

115
privately-owned companies to pursue ancillary manufacturing and selling activities?
On this side of the House we do not deny the need for a flexible and imaginative transport policy. We see a declining rail system. We see the threat to amenity in overcrowded and inadequate roads. We recognise the need to reform the road licensing system. If I may, at this stage in the debate, I will briefly develop two points, one on railways and one on road haulage, which I think have been central to the debate as it has developed over the last few hours.
In the past the railways have played a major role in the economic development of Britain. For many years heavy capital expenditure has been invested in massive fixed infrastructures which have, quite literally, become part of the environment, part of the economy, part of our way of life. Whole generations have looked to the railways for their livelihood. But the plant used in rail transport is so specialised in design, so vast in scale, and so financially costly that it is difficult to move it, to put it to any other use, or even to change it in any radical way. It is not for nothing that the railways are called "the permanent way". The consequence is that railway systems last, or are made to last, a very long time. New technologies arrive, but the old technology lives on and has to operate alongside the new—steam locomotives will still be in service when supersonic air transports are flying the skies above them.
So these technological mismatches, coupled with the fact that the production of new vehicles (aircraft and automobiles) invariably outstrips the construction of the roads and airports which are necessary for their effective use, inevitably produce operational mismatches with which the consumer, whether he is a businessman or a private passenger, is only too familiar.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is he advocating that our railways should be abolished and that they are no longer in use?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, my Lords, I am moving on to develop an argument
116
which is in sympathy with what the noble Lord himself was saying earlier. My point is that the great difficulty in a railway system is the quality of permanence; that it lasts for an extremely long time and is difficult to adapt for any other use. I want to come on to the way in which British Railways have attempted to solve the problem by the introduction of the freightliners, and then to talk about the proposals concerning freightliners which are envisaged in the Bill. It is for that reason that I refer to this matter as one of the central provisions in the Bill.
British Railways have been in a declining situation, as I see it, for the reasons I have given, They have had great problems and what we need to do now is to look at the Bill to see what it offers the Railways Board in future. It offers the prospect of a certain amount of new freight traffic. A figure has been given of perhaps 10 per cent. of road traffic shifted to rail over a period of eight or nine years, as a result of what may turn out to be an unworkable licensing system.
All this is to a certain extent speculative. Nobody has yet had an opportunity to see the new licensing system in practice. But, as the Bill is before us tonight, what is certain is that the operation of the freightliners, described by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, quoting Sir Stanley Raymond, as the brightest jewel in British Railways crown, is to be removed from the Railways and handed over to the National Freight Corporation. As Ministers opposite have good reason to know, this proposal is bitterly resented by railwaymen and indeed caused the departure of the previous Chairman of the British Railways Board, Sir Stanley Raymond. And to-day the voices, as we have heard them in the debate, of Lord Robertson of Oakridge, Lord Hurcomb and Lord Beeching, have all been raised in opposition to this proposal. It is a proposal made in the interests of a theoretical integration of the movement of freight by road and rail, and I believe that serious damage has already been done to the morale and spirit of British Railways. If this proposal is brought into effect, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, it will be a "defiance of logic"; as he said, it will cripple a development vital to the future of British Railways. Even on the Government's own side the noble Lord,

117
Lord Popplewell, speaking in support of the Bill in principle, voiced doubts on this point.
British Railways can justly claim to have been right in the forefront of the container revolution. Here at last they had something to be proud of, something to put their best men into, something to show off to the rest of Europe. Now they are to lose control of the freightliner service in yet another bewildering reorganisation based on abstract theories that they find difficult to understand. This is no way to build up confidence within an organisation. This is no way to attract the skilled people who are so badly needed. This is not going to lead to the vitality and enthusiasm which in the end, whatever is written into an Act of Parliament, is the only method of injecting life into a vital part of the transport system. Above all, this proposal fails to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, explained so clearly in his powerful speech, the crucial relationship between the production and the sales aspects of an undertaking. This is where integration is needed, between production and sales within British Rail, not in the theoretical integration existing only in the minds of the people who drafted the Bill which has now emerged in this proposal for a National Freight Corporation.
This same fatal tendency, to fit the problem to the solution, runs through the Government's proposals for controlling the movement of goods by road. For years the Labour Party have had their solution pat—it has been in their Election Manifestoes—the integration of road and rail by means of a publicly-owned National Freight Authority. When they came to power they got down to work on the implications. Three years later—it took that time—four White Papers later, the Government produced this Bill, 267 pages long, with 156 clauses and 18 Schedules. The Bill has been debated in another place since its introduction just before Christmas. It is the biggest single piece of legislation since 1945. Much of it has been altered in its passage through the House of Commons, sometimes as a result of Opposition Amendments, sometimes because the Government themselves had second, and third, and many subsequent thoughts.
But one crucial provision remains, the absurd and pretentious procedure which
118
is proposed for the movement of goods. Let me remind your Lordships of what the Bill actually proposes. It has already been described by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford when he opened from this side of the House earlier this afternoon—but it cannot be repeated too often. If an industrialist or a private road haulier wishes to send a lorry of more than five tons unladen weight or 16 tons laden weight (or, if the lorry is a bulk carrier, any distance at all over five miles) he has to apply to a licensing authority for an appropriate licence, what is called a special authorisation. The licensing authority then forwards copies of this application to the National Freight Corporation and British Rail. Those two bodies have 14 days in which to oppose the granting of a licence. If they do object, the licence will not be issued until the industrialist or the road haulier has appeared before the licensing authority. The authority then has to decide whether in terms of speed, reliability and cost—the three criteria which are specified in the Bill—the National Freight Corporation or British Rail can match the applicant. If, in the view of the licensing authority, they can, the applicant will be refused a licence. It need not be a faster, cheaper or more reliable service which is offered by British Rail or the National Freight Corporation; what the Bill says is that it should be equal to that offered by the applicant.
Imagine the impossibility of getting a fair comparison. This is what the licensing authority is faced with. How can true costs—and remember the authority will have a statutory duty to make a judgment on this—be obtained when both British Rail and the National Freight Corporation are running at a loss, a budgeted loss for the first five years, and receiving a substantial subsidy from public funds? How do you measure speed—by published railway timetables? How is reliability affected by problems of railway employee relations—go-slows, stop-pages and strikes? How is the general low standard of efficiency of the railway organisation to be assessed? How are tax differentials to be taken into account? British Rail pay 2d. a gallon on diesel oil. Hauliers pay—what? 3s. 11d. a gallon on the same commodity. Arbitrary judgments will have to be made under this system. It is cumbersome; only to describe it is evidence that it is

119
cumbersome. It is bound to be longwinded, and it is a uniquely bureaucratic system that is envisaged.
Anyone who has investigated it must look forward with dread to grave practical difficulties. No one can feel confident that delay and resentment and even injustice will not be the product of this system. The private road haulier will be penalised, and however well the National Freight Corporation or the railways are run this built-in statutory privilege is bound to blunt the spur to their efficiency. And the crucial point surely is this. If industry is failing to appreciate the publicly-owned transport facilities which are available, then the remedy is improved marketing of those services. This is what the railways themselves did with the freightliners. Above all, transport is a service it is not an end in itself. The man who is best fitted to judge what form of carriage suits his distributive and production chain, what suits his business best, is the originator of the freight traffic himself.
In the Third Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons it was pointed out that this major piece of legislation comes to your Lordships' House with one-third of its clauses not debated at all, either in Committee or on Report. Why this is so I believe to be a sterile line of argument in this House. The fact is, it is so. Fifty clauses have not been debated either in Committee or on Report in the House of Commons. The need for thorough debate and amendment of this rushed and badly drafted Bill is shown most vividly in those clauses which were debated in another place.
As a result of the Committee stage, when the Bill arrived on Report before Whitsun in the House of Commons the Government themselves moved more than 200 Amendments. These were Government Amendments as a result of discussions that took place in Committee, on that part of the Bill which had been discussed in Committee—the two-thirds which had been discussed. So what about the clauses of the Bill which were not discussed at all in Committee? What about the one-third that received no discussion? Were they so well thought out and so well drafted that they required no further change at all? Then,
120
as we know, in Committee the Government inserted more than 200 drafting Amendments and Amendments of substance into their own Bill, and there must be a likelihood of additional Government Amendments in your Lordships' House. Then there will undoubtedly be more Amendments from the Cross-Benches, these Benches and the Liberal Party Benches.
All this means that we in this House have a job to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he spoke last month in the debate on Procedure, made quite clear, one of the main functions of this House is to act as a Revising Chamber. Make no mistake about it, this is a function we intend to exercise. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said earlier that we do not ask our supporters to reject this Bill on Second Reading to-day. But what we do ask, and expect, is full support from all parts of the House, from the people with great specialist knowledge of transport who have to-day spoken in the debate, wherever they sit, when we come to scrutinise this Bill in Committee. The Bill cannot leave this House in the form in which it has arrived.
8.32 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I understand that shortly before I returned to the House the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, complained about my absence. I should like to point out in my defence that I was here continuously from 2.30 until 7.20, when I left to prepare a reply to what, up to that point, had been more than four hours of debate. I greatly doubt whether there are many Members of your Lordships' House who were here for a longer continuous period than that. However, if it is the wish of the House that, rather than seek to reply reasonably to the main points that have been raised in a long debate, I should sit right through to the end, taking such notes as are possible and giving a scrappy reply, then I am quite willing to do that. I had thought that the House would prefer a reasonable reply.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord need not get too concerned about this. When he comes to

121
read what I said—he is at a disadvantage, because he was not in a position to hear it—he will see that it was a good-natured observation, and not one to be taken seriously.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, all I know is that when I came back I was told from two quarters that Lord Windlesham had complained that I was not in my place. That may or may not be correct as an interpretation of what he said. But I shall be quite happy to read to-morrow what he said.
There is another point. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, sought to create, or to see, a difference between what my right honourable friend the First Secretary said and what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said. Rather than that the noble Lord should wait until to-morrow I will repeat what Lord Shepherd said.
"I believe that in another place my right honourable friend the First Secretary, when introducing this Bill, described it as 'practical Socialism'. She may well have been helping herself in another place, but, knowing the attitude of the majority of the House, clearly her words were not for my aid or assistance. Whether it is practical Socialism or not, I would suggest there is nothing doctrinaire in it, and … in my view it makes good commercial sense."
If the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can find disagreement between Mrs. Castle and Lord Shepherd on that, it does not surprise me in the least that he finds it possible to disagree with large sections of the Bill.
If I may start off with what appears to be accepted in the Bill, no one, in spite of the criticism of the length of the Bill, has criticised the Bill as being bad throughout. The worst that has been said about it is that the good parts would tend to be obscured by the bad. But may I just recapitulate some things which have been said from different quarters of the House, excluding those who sit behind me—because, after all, we expect them to support the Bill. I will confine myself to the acceptances which have come from the Opposition Benches, the Liberal Benches and the Cross Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, started off by accepting that the Government had a mandate to introduce the Bill. He accepted the pro-
122
posals for the streamlining of capital structure and for the elimination of the long line of deficit financing. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, accepted the proposals in relation to inland waterways, which he thought were good. He, as did other noble Lords in various parts of the House, liked the measure for road safety which led to the regulation of drivers, although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and at least two other noble Lords, suggested that there might be more flexibility in relation to this. He accepted that quality licensing was designed to help road safety, and that from that point of view it could be welcomed.
I would direct your Lordships' attention to the fact that much more than one-third of the Bill went without any reference at all during the last five hours; and we can take it, in part at least, that silence means consent. So we come down to a certain number of major items which were raised throughout the debate, on which there is difference in your Lordships' House. We must accept that smile of these are differences arising from political thinking. After all, if the Conservative Party and the Labour Party thought alike on all major matters in economic affairs, it would be a farce for us to be sitting looking at each other; we ought all to be sitting on the same side.
Before I get too deeply immersed in the Bill I should like to get some of the more pleasing aspects off my chest. I should like to join those who have already congratulated the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on their maiden speeches. It was quite refreshing to find that two maiden speeches on a Bill of this kind should come from people who spoke from their personal background of experience in the industry, totally different as that was. As others have said before me, it is encouraging to find people taking part in our debates and giving us the benefit of their experience. I do not say that I necessarily agreed with either of them, but it was most refreshing to find them taking part in, and making their maiden speeches on, so controversial a measure, yet doing so in such an uncontroversial fashion. I hope, as others have hoped, that we shale hear frequently from both noble Lords, that the good beginning they made will in time improve, and that sometimes they

123
may find themselves agreeing with the Government.
One of the general criticisms that has been made is about the cost of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, quoted the Multiple Shops' Federation estimate of 3d. in the pound. The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson quoted the Food Manufacturers' Federation's £16 million on the British food bill. I understand that this £16 million appeared in a full page advertisement in The Times. I have seen no build-up nor has anyone in the Ministry seen any indication of where this £16 million figure comes from.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this matter. Perhaps I should deal with this afterwards, because it is some criticism of the Ministry. But I think the reason no build-up has appeared is because certain letters have not been answered. I should be very happy to deal with this with the noble Lord afterwards if he would like to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think that when people make claims of this kind they ought at least to give some factual material behind it. Perhaps it can be the subject of a suitable Amendment during the next stage. We shall be very interested to hear the build-up.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I was not aware he was pursuing that aspect. If he was asking me where I got my facts from, I can tell him that I did not get them from the advertisement in The Times. I made the proper application and I got a letter from the Food Manufacturers' Federation saying that this was the figure. If the noble Lord wants to see it, he can see it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not need to see it, because, after all, they put the advertisement in the paper. What they did not advertise was where they got the figure of £16 million. What I do know is that there is going to be added to the cost of foodstuffs in the future the cost of the advertisement in The Times. We may yet hear how the figures are calculated, but in the Minister of Transport's Paper, submitted to N.E.D.C., in March, leaving out provisions about road haulage charges which have since been
124
deleted, it is shown that there would be no increase in costs or prices as a result of the Bill, other than any possibly caused by the reduction in drivers' hours; and this will be only if the reduction in drivers' hours is not followed by an increase in productivity. And he would be a foolish man who suggested that the reduction in drivers' hours is not going to be followed by some increase in productivity.
My Lords, the next point which I think was the subject of major criticism from various points of the House was the transfer of the freightliners to the National Freight Corporation; and on this occasion there were doubts expressed by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. I would point out that on this Bill the Government have been accused of one particular thing throughout: that they are seeking to give support to British Rail, irrespective of the effect on road hauliers or on the community generally; that we are bending over backwards to help the railways pay. At the same time we are being asked, or accused of seeking (because it has been put both ways), to deal a death blow to railways by removing from them their most promising venture. If I could put it another way, my Lords, we are accused of "feather-bedding" the railways and then stabbing them when they are comfortably laid down on the bed. It does not make sense if the Government—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, you know that he who laughs last laughs best. One should never interrupt in the middle of a sentence; wait and see how it is going to finish. It does not make sense to accuse the Government at one time of seeking to do too much to help the railways and at the same time accuse them of trying to kill them. One or other of the accusations obviously must be false.
It is because the Government believe it is essential to continue in one organisation the flexibility and door-to-door facility of road haulage and the speed and economy of rail over long distances that the service is being transferred. The railways, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd pointed out, will have a 49 per cent. interest in the freightliner company.

125
It follows, therefore, that both the National Freight Corporation and British Railways have a practically equal interest in seeing that freightliners work. The railways are not going to be subjected to needless competition from the National Freight Corporation who would not in the other circumstances have to care very much whether the freightliners work or not. But we now have two organisations with the same end in view: to make this a profitable, integrated service, not that one part of it should be more profitable at the expense of the others. It is not going to be in the interests of the National Freight Corporation to see the freightliners become a deficit organisation at the expense of their road haulage interests, or alternatively to have the road haulage interest profitable at the expense of the National Freight Corporation.
We believe that this is, in fact, the best way to guarantee that an integrated service will he a commercially profitable service, and that the railways will get the best possible return from it. And that is why we are doing it.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on to another point, may I say this? He has very successfully scored his point by quoting remarks made in some parts of the House against those made in other parts of the House, but there is one argument with which he has not dealt, and that is the argument very ably put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and also, perhaps less well, by my humble self. That is, the argument that it was extremely unusual in business to separate the job of selling from the operation of production or operation.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, but it is not unheard of. We have seen in recent years some very unusual combinations in private enterprise: the growth of the large organisation; the multiple companies in which it is sometimes almost impossible for anyone outside the directors' room of the top holding company to know exactly where the ramifications begin and end. There are very great changes, and the idea that everything connected with manufacturing and selling is necessarily best done if it is being done by the same organisation is no longer totally accepted. It may be that in some cases
126
that is the right way to do it, bat it is at least capable of proof in private enterprise itself that this method is also a successful way of doing it.
We believe that to get an integrated service both the parties should have, as it were, a vested interest in seeing that it is a success. It is because we want to see the railways ceasing to be a drag on the rest of transport that we are doing it this way, which we believe will give the railways the best return for the enterprise which they have shown in making the freightliners something that exists, rather than something which was merely projected. I am not seeking to mace any points on that. The Government are determined—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, would certainly give us credit for seeing that there is no needless waste of money on the railways—that the railways ought not to pile up losses if it can be prevented, and we are doing it in this way because we believe it is the way in which the railways will best benefit at the end of the day.
But, of course, there is bound to be disagreement, because this sort of thing can be proved or disproved finally only in the results; and if the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has made is true (and wish to thank him for his reminder), that history, so far as transport legislation was concerned, did not begin in 1962, and if, as my noble friend. Lord Popplewell, said, the 1947 Act had been allowed to carry on instead of being interfered with by the Conservative Government, we might have had a very different story altogether.
My Lords, perhaps I may come now to quantity licensing—and this again is another of the points on which many of your Lordships spoke. Notwithstanding what I thought was a very clear exposition of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, some noble Lords, at least, seemed to be under misapprehensions about it, or at least seemed resolved to continue along lines that they were going to do in any event whether Lord Shepherd had spoken or not. May I remind your Lordships of some of the positions in relation to quantity licensing? In the first instance, it does not apply to any vehicles under 16 tons plated weight. Secondly, it does not apply to journeys under 100 miles, except for a very few specified commodities

127
some of which have been named—coal; some steel products; some ores—and then only to loads which are under 11 tons. The special authorisations last for five years; they are granted by independent licensing authorities, and there is an appeal to the Transport Tribunal. The grant is automatic if rail cannot offer as good a service.
In relation to the point which I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about the situation when something was needed urgently, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the expedited grant of permission which is possible under Clause 75 in circumstances where it would obviously be unreasonable to go through the normal procedure. This was specifically put into the Bill to deal with a situation which ought not to he frustrated merely by the need to go through the ordinary procedure.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I asked whether it applied to return loads.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, even if it was not the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who made that point—and I rather thought it was—certainly somebody else did. I will come to his point about back loads in a moment. At the moment I have only got to the bottom of the first page. The Minister can make exemptions, and there have already been indications in relation to livestock, furniture removals, and so on. This is referred to in Clause 71(5).
On the question of back loads on which, quite legitimately, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is anxious, these are treated in exactly the same way as outward loads. The special authorisations, normally lasting five years, covering both kinds of loads, going and coming, can be applied for in wide terms—for example, all kinds of goods between X and Y, where X might be a group of counties in the north of Scotland and Y another group in the south of Scotland or in England. The applicant will normally apply in as wide terms as he thinks the rail authorities will not object to, or, alternatively, where he thinks the rail authorities cannot successfully object. So there is no distinction between forward loads and back loads. This misconception arises from importing existing procedures into the new procedure.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am only seeking information. How can the railways object if they do not know the nature of the back load?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the presumption is that the railways will be objecting on their ability to carry the goods, unless there is an indication that it is some special traffic. It does not matter so much to the railways what is in the load; it is the points between which it is being carried. For instance, one would not expect a lorry coming down from Aberdeen to somewhere South of the Border carrying fish to come back with coal dust. Certainly one would not want to be eating the fish that went on the succeeding journey. It is reasonably simple for the railways either to know that they are objecting both to the forward load and the back load or to know that they are not objecting; or, if they do object, that they either succeed or fail in these objections. I have gone out of my way to try to be helpful to those noble Lords to whom I am replying and, as I have said, applicants will normally apply in the widest possible terms they think they can get away with, either without objection or by successfully repelling objections.
I should now like to come to the points which were made on Clause 48 in regard to manufacturing interests. In the seven years in which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, it has been a regular procedure for noble Lords opposite to insist that the nationalised undertakings should be subject to commercial considerations. This is a reasonable proposition for them to put forward, but they cannot put it forward only on certain occasions and put it back on others. If this Government introduced legislation under which they sought to lay down that a particular company or group of companies which were manufacturing a particular product should be allowed to manufacture only in such quantities as they could use within their own organisation, irrespective of the effect it had on the viability of the product, there would be shrieks of protest that this was an interference with the commercial operations of the company.
When we compel a nationalised body to cut down the size of its operations, its

129
workshops, or whatever it may be, to what it can absorb within its own activities, we may in fact be compelling it to operate on a basis which makes it loss-creating. In relation to these manufacturing activities we wish these nationalised boards to be in exactly the same position as any other commercial enterprise. They should be allowed to get the best value that can come from the proper exercise of their commercial judgment—no more and no less. The Bill includes all the necessary safeguards for this to be done only on a commercial basis. If it is good for Private industry to get this, I cannot see that there is anything wrong in doing the same for a nationalised industry, unless we are seeking to operate on the basis that it should be made as difficult as possible for the nationalised industry to pay its way. If we are all working from the same basis, that we do not want to waste the taxpayers' money by compelling the nationalised industries to lose money, we should at least give them the conditions which provide them with the best chance of making a success of their operation.
There are a number of smaller points to which, even at this hour, I should properly refer. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to the Railways Board's applications in regard to prices. At the risk of appearing to take the easy way out, but in the interests of your Lordships' time, I would direct the noble Lord's attention to the very full statement made by the Minister of Transport in his Third Reading speech, which is reported in Hansard for the morning of May 30. I think that he will find it gives him the complete answer that he is seeking.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was one of the noble Lords who spoke about the P.T.A.s. There were varying doubts about these Authorities, and I think that Lord Henley's point could be summarised in this way. Why rush into them? Why not wait for the reorganisation of local government? The simple answer is that we cannot afford throughout the whole country to wait for the coming into effect of the reorganisation of local government. This will take a number of years to implement. Initially, the Minister's intention is to set up four, on Tyneside, on Merseyside, in the West Midlands and in the
130
Greater Manchester area. The Government consider the need for reorganisation in these places to be urgent and that it cannot wait for local government reorganisation. In fact, informal discussions are already under way. As for he rest of the country, the Government have said, and we adhere to this, that in this respect they will be content to wait until the future pattern of local government is clearer. In other words, where we can reasonably wait for the new pattern we are content to do so. But where the problem is urgent and will become worse and worse if we wait, then we think that the balance is in favour of action, and that is why these four authorities have been chosen.
On this same subject of the P.T.A.s, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was a little unfair to the Scottish Office in saying that we did not seem able to make up our minds whether we wanted a P.T.A. or not. He referred to the negotiations between Glasgow Corporation and the Scottish Bus Group, and said that these would avoid the need for a P.T.A. in Glasgow. Although the Government also hope that these negotiations will prove successful, they will not necessarily remove the need for a P.T.A. The negotiations will not, for example, affect the surburban rail services which are an essential component of the local system.
The reason why the Government have not yet decided on whether to set up a P.T.A., is that the Secretary of State is anxious to have full discussions with local authorities on the recommendations made in the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study. If I am to be criticised about what we do in the Scottish Office, I would rather be criticised in a matter of this kind along the lines that we are proceeding too cautiously, than that we are proceeding too rashly—and think that the noble Lord., Lord Drumalbyn, will probably agree with me on that point.
Continuing with the Scottish points, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked why should the Scottish Transport Group take over the Caledonian Steam Packet Company. It is in order to integrate the domestic bus and shipping services to the fullest possible extent. The C.S.P.C. operates vehicle ferries in the Clyde and its traditional links with the railway system are not as strong as they used to be. C.S.P.C. ships are similar to those of

131
MacBrayne's, and it will be sensible to bring both companies under the same ownership.
Then the noble Lord referred to Clauses 39 to 58. He welcomed Clause 39, but questioned the value of a review at the end of three years. If funds are being made available from public sources, obviously there cannot be a blank cheque going on for ever. There must be a review at some time. But I think it is a mistake to assume that a review, whether it be at three-year intervals or at any other interval, necessarily means that the grant is to be terminated or even that it will be reduced. There is a possibility that in certain circumstances it will be necessary to increase the grant. In some cases, it may be found that it is not necessary to continue it. In other cases, it may be that it can be on a reduced basis. What is necessary is that the grant should be reviewed from time to time, and that a decision in relation to this particular aspect should be taken on the basis of the circumstances as they exist. But there is not necessarily any imperilling of the line simply by reason of the review.
On the question of Clause 58, the noble Lord did not do himself justice by having the quite unworthy suspicion that the reason for this clause being imported into the Bill was so that the Government could blackmail local authorities into paying for the services as an alternative to closing them down. It is a much simpler explanation than that. It is simply designed to give Scottish authorities powers which the English authorities already have. If I can anticipate the Committee stage, we hope to introduce a further Amendment making certain than when district councils do this it does not come out of the ls, limit that is imposed on them at the Present time. So there is nothing ulterior in this at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, raised a number of points mainly in relation to the private motorist, and he asked for some assurances, I cannot do other than accept some of his points as matters to be dealt with in Committee. But I would remind your Lordships that an undertaking was given in another place that a further statement would be made about the guidance which we shall be giving to local authorities on the use of their greater freedom to regulate
132
traffic and control parking, if Parliament approves the provisions in Part IX of the Bill. The guidance will range from quite detailed points of procedure and law to matters of general principle. Most of it will be issued in the form of a manual about the time when the road traffic clauses come into effect. We shall stress in particular the need for adequate consultation and publicity when local authorities make orders to control traffic, and we shall make clear the importance we attach to proper consideration of essential needs in such matters as access to premises.
There was one point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, touched when he was talking primarily of the interests of the private motorist; that was, that when one is considering the cost involved in road as against rail one must at least take into consideration the extent to which it is perhaps necessary to embark on road expenditure to widen roads or to form new roads, where the principal grievance is that the motorist who could move very much faster in complete safety on these roads is unable to do so because he is frustrated by the heavy commercial loads on them. Last week I motored down to London, which is something I try to avoid if possible, and it was surprising how frequently on roads where overtaking was difficult one waited 15 or 20 minutes because there was a lorry tootling along the road at 25 miles an hour and a queue had built up.
To a certain extent some of the proposals in relation to commercial traffic which are flowing from this Bill will be of direct advantage to private motorists, in enabling them to get the best possible use of the roads as they are and the roads as they will continue to be improved. Although this has nothing to do with the Bill, as was the case with the bulk of what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said in his opening remarks, I would point out that this Government are spending considerably more on road improvements and new roads than any Government in our history, and the amount continues to rise.
LORD, CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the flow of the noble Lord, but I would just query whether the amount which is being spent is as great as it would have been if the cuts had not taken place.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think it is pretty difficult to answer that one.
LORD CHESHAM: Very well, my Lords. I shall not press the matter if it is difficult.
LORD HUGHES: What I was going to say, my Lords, was that it is pretty difficult to refute it. Obviously, the amount which is being spent is bound to be less than it would have been if the cuts had not taken place. What I am saying is that even with the cuts we are spending considerably more in real terms—not just in actual money—than any Government have done, and the figure continues to rise. No Government in this country for years ahead, so far as I can see, will ever spend as much money on the roads as the motorists would like, simply because that would mean devoting a disproportionately large part of our resources to them. What I am pointing out is that whatever defects there are in what we are doing on the roads, they are not as great as the defects of our predecessors. That may be negative praise.
My Lords, I think I have covered most of the main points which have been made, and if I may close on a more jocular note I would say that I at least was grateful for the fact that when the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, was making his criticism in relation to the transfer of the freightliner services he accused the Government of cannibalism in only that single respect. He did not go quite so far as the former Minister of Transport, the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, who said that the Bill was ill-conceived and ill-digested. I have not been able to follow the connection between conception and digestion, unless it relates to the theory that a particular variety of persons who work behind counters eat their young. So far as transport is concerned, the Government have no intention of doing that. We be-
134
lieve that this measure is one that will be of tremendous benefit to the country.
We hope that when the Opposition are considering the Amendments which are to be tabled for the Committee stage they will give preference in their considerations to matters which, because of the way things were done in the other House—and I am not seeking to apportion blame one way or the other when I say that—were not in fact considered there. I am not suggesting that they should confine their Amendments to those Parts of the Bill which were not considered there, but if in fact they wish that in one House or the other tee whole Bill shall have been considered then obviously they will be serving their own purpose, as well as the Government's purpose, by endeavouring to ensure that those matters which ought to be debated and which ought to be the subject of consideration for amendment but which have not been considered elsewhere may be looked at in your Lordships' House.
I should like to say, in closing these remarks, that my right honourable friend Lord Shepherd, when he reads this debate, as he will in due course, will, I think, feel as gratified as I am at the way in which your Lordships have undertaken this Second Reading debate. While there are points of strong fundamental political difference between the Parties here, that has not in any way spoilt our discussion. We have had, I think, a constructive Second Reading debate, and if the succeeding stages of this Bill are conducted in the same way as this Second Reading debate has been, then neither the Government nor the Opposition, or —much more important than either of us—the country itself, will have any reason to complain of the way your Lordships have considered this measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS) ORDER 1968
Order made by Her Majesty in Council under Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) under Standing Order 62 yesterday for Affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee on Thursday next.
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

THAMES VALLEY WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.